If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Beast)   So who's going to get screwed if Obamacare is struck down? Ironically, it's Southerners (who vote GOP), insurance companies (who support the GOP) and young people (who don't vote)   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 247
    More: Interesting, obamacare, Roberts Court, Scalia, supreme courts  
•       •       •

2332 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jun 2012 at 4:52 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



247 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-27 02:39:08 PM
i would have thought big insurance would've supported dems, but this is not the case.
 
2012-06-27 02:41:25 PM
SOCIALIZM!!111ELEVENTY
 
2012-06-27 02:51:50 PM
got it. we should care more about insurance companies than we should the constitutionality of the law.
 
2012-06-27 02:52:18 PM
It would be kind of amusing if the mandate was struck down and the rest stood.
 
2012-06-27 02:52:33 PM
got it. we should care more about insurance companies than about the constitutionality of the law

ftfm
 
2012-06-27 02:52:36 PM
And people like me

/a lot of people like me
//well... sorta like me, anyway
 
2012-06-27 02:53:53 PM
People will pre-existing conditions will go back to being screwed over.
Insurance companies will once again be able to drop people for costing them too much money.

But hey, Obama will be sad, so it will all be worth it.
 
2012-06-27 02:54:31 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: got it. we should care more about insurance companies than we should the constitutionality of the law.


Scalia sure as hell does! But we'll soon see if he'll cut off his nose to spite his face.
 
2012-06-27 02:55:10 PM

Marcus Aurelius: It would be kind of amusing if the mandate was struck down and the rest stood.


insurance companies would be sooooo farked.

people don't understand that without a single-payer system, a mandate is imperative to offset the additional cost insurance companies will incur by being required to cover preexisting conditions.
 
2012-06-27 02:55:32 PM

Lando Lincoln: People will pre-existing conditions will go back to being screwed over.
Insurance companies will once again be able to drop people for costing them too much money.

But hey, Obama will be sad, so it will all be worth it.


Those parts should pass constitutional muster. It's the mandate that's the most contentious provision.
 
2012-06-27 02:58:11 PM
Serious question (and I know Fark ain't the place to ask, but...) - if the individual mandate is struck down, will this bring a public option back into play?
 
2012-06-27 03:00:20 PM
I really would like a medicare system for everyone. My boss pays 11500 a year for my ins. I pay an additional 3500. If we took all that, and an additional 2k from my pocket, paid it in tax, and everyone paid whatever they pay for their ins, we'd easily be able to cover everyone in the country. Easily. one system, one payer, everyone in, no one out.
 
2012-06-27 03:00:37 PM
The mandate is necessary if pre-existing conditions denials are eliminated. There are plenty of scumbags in the country who will not get insurance until they get really sick.

I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.
 
2012-06-27 03:00:58 PM
The funny thing is that anyone with even a modicum of understanding of the Republican position on economics and government understands why it was conservatives who proposed the individual mandate, and why it makes complete sense from a Republican point of view.

It's really Democrats who shouldn't like it. But these days, it's all about which party PASSED the bill than intellectual honesty.
 
2012-06-27 03:05:56 PM

vygramul: It's really Democrats who shouldn't like it. But these days, it's all about which party PASSED the bill than intellectual honesty.


The fact that the Gov. Romney's signature piece of legislation which he said should be applied to the nation one of the direct inspirations for the bill says that.
 
2012-06-27 03:08:12 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: The mandate is necessary if pre-existing conditions denials are eliminated. There are plenty of scumbags in the country who will not get insurance until they get really sick.

I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.


i54.tinypic.com
 
2012-06-27 03:08:33 PM

vygramul: The funny thing is that anyone with even a modicum of understanding of the Republican position on economics and government understands why it was conservatives who proposed the individual mandate, and why it makes complete sense from a Republican point of view.

It's really Democrats who shouldn't like it. But these days, it's all about which party PASSED the bill than intellectual honesty.


I understand that it was a crappy way to keep the insurance companies in the money loop. But nearly the entire Democratic party shied away from even bringing up the single-payer topic, so this is the best that we could get.
 
2012-06-27 03:14:18 PM

pisceandreamer: Serious question (and I know Fark ain't the place to ask, but...) - if the individual mandate is struck down, will this bring a public option back into play?


It has to, as it's the only option left. Look at it this way:

If SCOTUS strikes it all down tomorrow, then the Republican answer to HCR will have been buried. The onus will be on the Dems to provide their plan to fix a broken healthcare system, and we know their response is either single-payer or public option.
 
2012-06-27 03:14:50 PM

Marcus Aurelius: It would be kind of amusing if the mandate was struck down and the rest stood.


Funny until insurance companies are banned from operating in all 50 states for failing to meet each state's reserve/profit requirements. Then nobody would have insurance! So fun! So cool! Can't wait!

Insurance companies for the most part stayed out of the fight. They were in a lose/lose situation and went with the "everybody must purchase your product by law" side and in hopes of making a buck. That would be the Democrat side.
 
2012-06-27 03:18:49 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.


And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.
 
2012-06-27 03:22:11 PM

MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.

And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.


[notsureifserious.jpg]
 
2012-06-27 03:22:39 PM

bradkanus: Marcus Aurelius: It would be kind of amusing if the mandate was struck down and the rest stood.

Funny until insurance companies are banned from operating in all 50 states for failing to meet each state's reserve/profit requirements. Then nobody would have insurance! So fun! So cool! Can't wait!

Insurance companies for the most part stayed out of the fight. They were in a lose/lose situation and went with the "everybody must purchase your product by law" side and in hopes of making a buck. That would be the Democrat side.


You're right, they'd never raise their rates to meet the shortfall.
 
2012-06-27 03:22:59 PM

MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.

And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.


Wow, I have really not been paying attention! I never realized that communism had taken control of Canada, the entirety of Europe and most of Asia! And the entire time, I thought Reagan won the war against the commies!
 
2012-06-27 03:23:33 PM

MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.

And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.


You do know what single payer means, yes?

[notsureifserious.jpg]
 
2012-06-27 03:24:43 PM
I'll sit over here in the corner.
 
2012-06-27 03:26:04 PM
I hope the SCOTUS does strike the mandate down. It'd be hilarious to see insurance companies pouring billions into Democrat races just to try and protect their own existence. If Republican policies led to bankruptcy in the name of freedom, the good businessman knows that reduced profit at continued existence is a far superior option.
 
2012-06-27 03:31:26 PM

MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.

And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.


I was going to reply to this point by point, refuting all of your hypotheses and illuminating for all to see your deep level of misunderstanding not only my post, but things in general, but then I remembered something.

There's no need.

Everyone on this board already knows what an ignorant misguided dickhole you are.
 
2012-06-27 03:32:38 PM
And independent contractors who already have to buy their own health insurance.
Or people would become independent contractors if not for lack of health benefits.
 
2012-06-27 03:36:18 PM

Marcus Aurelius: bradkanus: Marcus Aurelius: It would be kind of amusing if the mandate was struck down and the rest stood.

Funny until insurance companies are banned from operating in all 50 states for failing to meet each state's reserve/profit requirements. Then nobody would have insurance! So fun! So cool! Can't wait!

Insurance companies for the most part stayed out of the fight. They were in a lose/lose situation and went with the "everybody must purchase your product by law" side and in hopes of making a buck. That would be the Democrat side.

You're right, they'd never raise their rates to meet the shortfall.


Insurance companies can't raise rates without going through the "rate review" process in their state. They literally have to go before a state committee and prove why they need to increase premiums. Often their excuse is that if they don't increase premiums, they'll fall below the states reserve threshold. You see, all 50 states require that insurance companies make a profit - enough of one to cover X amount of subscribers if they all got sick at one time. So, no they can't just raise their rates whenever they feel like it.

Remember - in the food chain for health care doctors, hospitals, drug companies, medical device companies and other players can raise their prices anytime they see fit. Only the health insurers have to ask for permission. This means that insurance companies eat it until they can get a rate review. Often the rate increases are drastic because they have to work in the possibilities of the non-regulated factors raising rates.

Do you know why doctors and hospitals raise rates on insurers? Because medicare and medicaid don't pay enough!

YOu can blame insurers all you want, but they don't set the initial cost of health care - your doctor and his other partners in crime do.
 
2012-06-27 03:37:14 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: got it. we should care more about insurance companies than about the constitutionality of the law

ftfm


Yup. The individual mandate sucks ass. However, there's no way of preventing people from gaming the system without it. That's why if/when SCOTUS strikes down the mandate, a lot of the guts of Obamacare are going to be worthless. The law will have no teeth.
 
2012-06-27 03:39:05 PM

FlashHarry: Marcus Aurelius: It would be kind of amusing if the mandate was struck down and the rest stood.

insurance companies would be sooooo farked.

people don't understand that without a single-payer system, a mandate is imperative to offset the additional cost insurance companies will incur by being required to cover preexisting conditions.


...

That is true. The only way the insurance companies could handle people "gaming the system" that way is to raise rates for EVERYBODY ELSE.

That would suck.
 
2012-06-27 03:39:40 PM

Marcus Aurelius: It would be kind of amusing if the mandate was struck down and the rest stood.


I think the law will stand as it is.
 
2012-06-27 03:40:09 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: pisceandreamer: Serious question (and I know Fark ain't the place to ask, but...) - if the individual mandate is struck down, will this bring a public option back into play?

It has to, as it's the only option left. Look at it this way:

If SCOTUS strikes it all down tomorrow, then the Republican answer to HCR will have been buried. The onus will be on the Dems to provide their plan to fix a broken healthcare system, and we know their response is either single-payer or public option.


Or we could just let the health care system stay the way it is so eventually only the rich can get good (if any) health care.

BRILLIANT!
 
2012-06-27 03:42:03 PM

MeinRS6: And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.


The fact that EVERY first world country has nationalized health care, and the US is the ONLY country that doesn't, strikes you as perfectly legitimate and clearly the US has the (only) right idea about how to handle health care costs?
 
2012-06-27 03:42:07 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.

And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.

Wow, I have really not been paying attention! I never realized that communism had taken control of Canada, the entirety of Europe and most of Asia! And the entire time, I thought Reagan won the war against the commies!


Can't trust Republicans to do *anything* right. So vote Republican.
 
2012-06-27 03:48:00 PM

xanadian: However, there's no way of preventing people from gaming the system without it. That's why if/when SCOTUS strikes down the mandate, a lot of the guts of Obamacare are going to be worthless. The law will have no teeth.


IMHO, if the mandate goes, the whole law will probably go as well.
//looks for a post from an old thread

I found some sites (liberal [new window], mostly) quoting the decision in Buckley vs Valeo (as referenced in Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock) saying
Unless it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not, the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law.
If the mandate is tossed, I'd say what is left would certainly be fully operative as a law. The question is if it's "evident that the Legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not".

If it's ruled that the mandate is not in congress's power, but everything else is, the question seems to be "would the law have passed if the mandate hadn't been included".
I think there's a pretty good case to be made that it wouldn't have (wouldn't have even gotten out of committee, most likely), so if you found that key piece unconstitutional, then the rest would be rolled back as well.

IF, that is, if the mandate/tax/penalty is found to be outside the powers of Congress.

//but who knows with this partisan, political court
 
2012-06-27 03:50:10 PM

tallguywithglasseson: xanadian: However, there's no way of preventing people from gaming the system without it. That's why if/when SCOTUS strikes down the mandate, a lot of the guts of Obamacare are going to be worthless. The law will have no teeth.

IMHO, if the mandate goes, the whole law will probably go as well.
//looks for a post from an old thread

I found some sites (liberal [new window], mostly) quoting the decision in Buckley vs Valeo (as referenced in Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock) sayingUnless it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not, the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law.If the mandate is tossed, I'd say what is left would certainly be fully operative as a law. The question is if it's "evident that the Legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not".

If it's ruled that the mandate is not in congress's power, but everything else is, the question seems to be "would the law have passed if the mandate hadn't been included".
I think there's a pretty good case to be made that it wouldn't have (wouldn't have even gotten out of committee, most likely), so if you found that key piece unconstitutional, then the rest would be rolled back as well.

IF, that is, if the mandate/tax/penalty is found to be outside the powers of Congress.

//but who knows with this partisan, political court


That would allow the justices to be mind-readers, which they are not.

Guess we'll see tomorrow.
 
2012-06-27 03:55:35 PM

xanadian: That would allow the justices to be mind-readers, which they are not.


Or they would just have to look at all of the information available, and make a judgment.

You know, like a judge.
 
2012-06-27 03:59:01 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.

And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.

I was going to reply to this point by point, refuting all of your hypotheses and illuminating for all to see your deep level of misunderstanding not only my post, but things in general, but then I remembered something.

There's no need.

Everyone on this board already knows what an ignorant misguided dickhole you are.


That's such a communist thing to say
 
2012-06-27 04:06:55 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.

And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.

I was going to reply to this point by point, refuting all of your hypotheses and illuminating for all to see your deep level of misunderstanding not only my post, but things in general, but then I remembered something.

There's no need.

Everyone on this board already knows what an ignorant misguided dickhole you are.


That's unfair.

He's an emotionally stunted alt who needs to be a fascist on the interwebs because his dad always thought he was kind of a pussy.
 
2012-06-27 04:07:48 PM

tallguywithglasseson: xanadian: That would allow the justices to be mind-readers, which they are not.

Or they would just have to look at all of the information available, and make a judgment.

You know, like a judge.


What time do the orders from Koch and Norquist come in? How are the underlings supposed to make decisions without input from management?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-27 04:08:56 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: got it. we should care more about insurance companies than about the constitutionality of the law

ftfm


The law isn't unconstitutional. The Commerce Clause is settled law, just like Marbury v. Madison. That's why most legal scholars thought PPACA would be upheld until recently.
 
2012-06-27 04:09:39 PM

unlikely: What time do the orders from Koch and Norquist come in? How are the underlings supposed to make decisions without input from management?


Hunting trips?
 
2012-06-27 04:13:44 PM

MeinRS6:

And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe.


You don't know what the word "communism" means. You seem to think it's a bad word to call things that you think you don't like.

In other words whether or not something is "communist" has no connection to something that you call communist.
 
2012-06-27 04:18:52 PM

vpb: The Commerce Clause is settled law


not to a hyper-partisan justice like scalia or thomas
 
2012-06-27 04:30:03 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.

And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.

I was going to reply to this point by point, refuting all of your hypotheses and illuminating for all to see your deep level of misunderstanding not only my post, but things in general, but then I remembered something.

There's no need.

Everyone on this board already knows what an ignorant misguided dickhole you are.


Such nasty name-calling. tsk tsk Those libby emotions really do rule your life. You should try facts and logic for a change.

The reason that you cannot respond in a meaningful way is because you know I'm right.

When something becomes not for profit, does it then become more or less innovative? There are many other questions I could ask along these lines, but that's as good as any to start.

Ask yourself - If you had a serious medical problem and you would benefit from the newest treatments with the best trained doctors, would you seek treatment in a not for profit communist country? You can go anywhere you want - do you pick a current or even former communist state?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-27 04:31:35 PM
Liberals have never been able to understand why Southerners (and other, generally rural poor whites) vote against their own economic interests. If you understand Maslow's hierarchy then you can see how being looked down upon by "liberal elites" might be a more urgent problem to them than "lack of prejudice" and "acceptance of facts" and "problem solving".

upload.wikimedia.org

Conservatives have figured that out and exploit it effectively.
 
2012-06-27 04:34:07 PM

MeinRS6:
Such nasty name-calling. tsk tsk


What goes around comes around.

Speaking of coming around. The phrase "tsk tsk" seems a little effeminate, even for a totally "not gay" stud like yourself.

Are you sure that you don't come here to meet guys?
 
2012-06-27 04:35:18 PM

MeinRS6: The reason that you cannot respond in a meaningful way is because you know I'm right.


No. I don't need to because several posters have already done that work for me. You don't have the slightest farking clue what you are talking about, what communism is and how socialized healthcare works. You prove that with each subsequent post.

Rather than waste my time refudiating* you, I'll let the others, and there are many of them, do it. And they have.

Therefore, you = dickhole.


*intentional
 
2012-06-27 04:35:26 PM

vpb: being looked down upon by "liberal elites" might be a more urgent problem to them


You are failing to recognize the fact that the agenda of "liberal elites" is bad for the country. So that's why not everyone responds to them in a positive manner. No graph required for that one.
 
2012-06-27 04:38:01 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: MeinRS6: The reason that you cannot respond in a meaningful way is because you know I'm right.

No. I don't need to because several posters have already done that work for me. You don't have the slightest farking clue what you are talking about, what communism is and how socialized healthcare works. You prove that with each subsequent post.

Rather than waste my time refudiating* you, I'll let the others, and there are many of them, do it. And they have.


You keep telling yourself that.

And also keep thinking that not for profit is the way to go, ignore all history and human nature. What could possibly go wrong?
 
2012-06-27 04:41:41 PM

MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: MeinRS6: The reason that you cannot respond in a meaningful way is because you know I'm right.

No. I don't need to because several posters have already done that work for me. You don't have the slightest farking clue what you are talking about, what communism is and how socialized healthcare works. You prove that with each subsequent post.

Rather than waste my time refudiating* you, I'll let the others, and there are many of them, do it. And they have.

You keep telling yourself that.

And also keep thinking that not for profit is the way to go, ignore all history and human nature. What could possibly go wrong?


Poor and sick people would get medical care?
 
2012-06-27 04:44:52 PM

MeinRS6: What could possibly go wrong?


www.costcowebpharmacysucks.com

But why talk about such trivialities when we can talk about YOU... What makes you tick? Why do you come here and just ignore refudiations* of your right wing talking points and just insult people. It seems like a cry for attention.

Well, you have it. So come on do share. Tell us why you hate gays again. That's more interesting than this "policy talk" about "health care".

* Also intentional
 
2012-06-27 04:45:13 PM

MeinRS6: And also keep thinking that not for profit is the way to go, ignore all history and human nature. What could possibly go wrong?


Good point. Here are the top 15 not for profit companies in revenue from 2010, and that's just Minnesota.
I'm sure the Mayo clinic will be glad to know they're not innovative because of communism.

> Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota
2010 Revenue (in millions) 9,035.2
> Mayo Clinic
2010 Revenue (in millions) 8,219.5
> Medica
2010 Revenue (in millions) 4,070.0
> HealthPartners
2010 Revenue (in millions) 3,577.7
> Allina Health System
2010 Revenue (in millions) 3,145.6
> Fairview Health Services
2010 Revenue (in millions) 2,727.5 6 2,703.3 0.9
> UCare
2010 Revenue (in millions) 1,623.7
> Essentia Health
2010 Revenue (in millions) 1,500.3
> Park Nicollet Health Services
2010 Revenue (in millions) 1,225.8
> HealthEast
2010 Revenue (in millions) 858.5
> CentraCare Corp.
2010 Revenue (in millions) 839.9
> North Memorial Health Care
2010 Revenue (in millions) 603.2
> Children's Hospitals and Clinics
2010 Revenue (in millions) 602.8
> University of Minnesota Physicians
2010 Revenue (in millions) 368.8
> St. Luke's Hospital of Duluth
2010 Revenue (in millions) 317.5
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-27 04:49:02 PM

MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: I am still amazed we are Ask yourself - If you had a serious medical problem and you would benefit from the newest treatments with the best trained doctors, would you seek treatment in a not for profit communist country? You can go anywhere you want - do you pick a current or even former communist state?


I would go to Germany or France. They are usually rated as the best. (and are usually called Socialist by Conservatives).

It's a meaningless question though. Single payer isn't socialized medicine, it's just socialized insurance. The doctors and hospitals would still be a free market. Comparing it to medicine in communist countries is a scare tactic for the ignorant, although the medical care in Cuba is supposed to be pretty good.

Since the insurance industry's business model is avoiding insuring sick people, a free market isn't going to encourage treating sick people because you have a perverse incentive.
 
2012-06-27 04:51:08 PM
Why do you people even bother with that f*cking retard?

/you know it's a complete waste of time
//but then, I guess we're all about wasting time here, aren't we?
 
2012-06-27 04:54:14 PM
Pharmaceuticals.
 
2012-06-27 04:55:45 PM
If this does get struck down, we really need to be re-thinking the entire Court and whether they are serving the people of this country.

Either way, with or without them though, the Federal Government has the right to mandate insurance coverage. It's a public health crisis that 40 million people are uninsured in this country.

It's just whether this administration has the balls to stand up to the bullies on the right who don't believe that health care is a right.
 
2012-06-27 04:56:20 PM

MeinRS6: Ask yourself - If you had a serious medical problem and you would benefit from the newest treatments with the best trained doctors, would you seek treatment in a not for profit communist country? You can go anywhere you want - do you pick a current or even former communist state?


Do those newest treatments actually cure or treat serious medical problems, or do they simply pour money into the vaults of Big Pharma? And how do you know that the doctors in any given country are really the best trained?
 
2012-06-27 04:57:47 PM
Here's hoping we don't get all the good stuff (coverage for all) minus the bad stuff (paying for it). But somehow that will happen, and the R's will gloat about how awesome "their" plan is while railing the D's for what it's costing.
 
2012-06-27 04:59:18 PM

pisceandreamer: Serious question (and I know Fark ain't the place to ask, but...) - if the individual mandate is struck down, will this bring a public option back into play?


The only thing that will bring a public option into play is a Democratic majority in the House and between 65 and 70 Democratic seats in the Senate (have to account for the Baucuses and Conrads).
 
2012-06-27 05:01:10 PM

MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: MeinRS6: The reason that you cannot respond in a meaningful way is because you know I'm right.

No. I don't need to because several posters have already done that work for me. You don't have the slightest farking clue what you are talking about, what communism is and how socialized healthcare works. You prove that with each subsequent post.

Rather than waste my time refudiating* you, I'll let the others, and there are many of them, do it. And they have.

You keep telling yourself that.

And also keep thinking that not for profit is the way to go, ignore all history and human nature. What could possibly go wrong?


I would say the history of countries like Switzerland, Germany, Singapore, and France that have all made their health insurers not-for-profit has shown this is an effective strategy.
 
2012-06-27 05:01:28 PM
Good.

Fark 'em.
 
2012-06-27 05:04:41 PM
When it gets struck down.... I can't wait for the epic thread that will ensue.
 
2012-06-27 05:04:45 PM
So basically, the groups that have it coming, for one reason or another:
Southerners for supporting a political party that screws them.
Insurance companies for supporting a political party that screws them.
Young people for not bothering to do their part in stopping a political party from screwing them.
 
2012-06-27 05:06:30 PM
i560.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-27 05:06:35 PM

Ball Sack Obama: When it gets struck down.... I can't wait for the epic thread that will ensue.


So nice to know that you're still a mean-spirited right-winger posting on Fark. It's refreshing, really.
 
2012-06-27 05:06:37 PM
No, its pretty much just the insurance companies.
 
2012-06-27 05:08:05 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Those parts should pass constitutional muster.


With the current court, constitutional muster means nothing.

/Go ahead, SCOTUS, prove me wrong.
//No, seriously, I want to be proven wrong.
 
2012-06-27 05:09:18 PM

Uncle Tractor: [i560.photobucket.com image 633x480]


I think you need to swap out "Norway" for "every other developed country on the entire farking planet" in that picture, buddy.
 
2012-06-27 05:10:21 PM
I'll give a fark about southerners when southerners give a fark about southerners. This is the same region that sent off bucketloads, the vast majority in fact, of soldiers who were poor, have nothings, fighting to keep a system that entirely profited the rich southern gentry and did squat all for them. These people have spent years of stepping on their own dicks to make a point since the civil war. Fark them!
 
2012-06-27 05:11:03 PM
another question: if the commerce clause rationale for the mandate is struck down, what other government mandates will also fall?
 
2012-06-27 05:11:12 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: Marcus Aurelius: Those parts should pass constitutional muster.

With the current court, constitutional muster means nothing.

/Go ahead, SCOTUS, prove me wrong.
//No, seriously, I want to be proven wrong.


Which is why the dissenters should be removed from the bench.

This should be an open-and-shut case if it were done by the numbers.
 
2012-06-27 05:12:41 PM
Wait, wouldn't young people be screwed by Obamacare? Lots of them don't have insurance because they don't want to pay for it. It's not even that expensive for them, even individual coverage is pretty cheap for them. The whole point of the mandate is to make them pay the insurance companies.
 
MFL
2012-06-27 05:14:35 PM
whidbey
If this does get struck down, we really need to be re-thinking the entire Court and whether they are serving the people of this country.

If this bill gets struck down they are saving the country. The majority of the country doesn't want this anyway.

Either way, with or without them though, the Federal Government has the right to mandate insurance coverage. It's a public health crisis that 40 million people are uninsured in this country.

Not they do not. The government cannot force someone to enter a market just so they can regulate it. This is fundamentally wrong.

It's just whether this administration has the balls to stand up to the bullies on the right who don't believe that health care is a right.

Bullies? Really? You guys were the ones that bullied this thing through congress with a completely partisan vote. But I guess it's only partisan when republicans do it.

Healthcare is a service not a right. This is the fundamental disconnect between those who cherish freedom and those who demand free stuff. Period.
 
2012-06-27 05:14:38 PM

MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.

And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.

I was going to reply to this point by point, refuting all of your hypotheses and illuminating for all to see your deep level of misunderstanding not only my post, but things in general, but then I remembered something.

There's no need.

Everyone on this board already knows what an ignorant misguided dickhole you are.

Such nasty name-calling. tsk tsk Those libby emotions really do rule your life. You should try facts and logic for a change.

The reason that you cannot respond in a meaningful way is because you know I'm right.


He responded, he didn't speak to your points, but he responded. It seems that is another word you don't know the meaning of. In his response, he essentially said "this" to the posts immediately before his, the ones you purposefully ignored. Rather, you attacked his post because it allowed you to continue your narrative. If you really have any notions of how socialized medicine works (and here's a hint, it has nothing to do with "communism") and how it relates to single payer, then, please, expound upon them.
 
2012-06-27 05:15:09 PM

FlashHarry: i would have thought big insurance would've supported dems, but this is not the case.


Why would they? Trial lawyers (the insurers' natural enemy) tend to be bigger Democatic donors. Although the fact is we do ok whoever is in charge, it's something like a 7.7% ROI with Democrats and 8.0% with Republicans. The data skews because of the Carter administration but insurers know to butter both sides of the bread.

/Will find the link later if citation is demanded
 
2012-06-27 05:15:48 PM

whidbey: If this does get struck down, we really need to be re-thinking the entire Court and whether they are serving the people of this country.

Either way, with or without them though, the Federal Government has the right to mandate insurance coverage. It's a public health crisis that 40 million people are uninsured in this country.

It's just whether this administration has the balls to stand up to the bullies on the right who don't believe that health care is a right.


My thoughts on this:

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."


:/
 
2012-06-27 05:15:59 PM
an MRI costs $98 in japan.

until the american people demand action our situation will continue to get worse.

the answer to the problem of cost isn't a government prohibition on catastrophic plans and a government mandate on the young and healthy to purchase overpriced insurance products from for profit corporations to pad their bottom lines that these people neither want, need, or that are a anything but a rip off from a for profit insurance industry that plays wingman as healthcare providers everywhere rape american citizens with no lube.

this reform bill looks more like a corporatist wet dream and payoff for campaign contributions than anything designed to address the real problems in healthcare.
they need to take the word affordable out of affordable care act.
 
2012-06-27 05:16:31 PM

Aarontology: vygramul: It's really Democrats who shouldn't like it. But these days, it's all about which party PASSED the bill than intellectual honesty.

The fact that the Gov. Romney's signature piece of legislation which he said should be applied to the nation one of the direct inspirations for the bill says that.


Originated by the Heritage Foundation in 1989, introduced as the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act in 1993 by 15 Republicans (including soon-to-be presidential nominee Bob Dole), re-introduced as the Healthy Americans Act in 2007 by Republican Bob Bennett....
 
2012-06-27 05:19:00 PM
Good lord...every thread is getting shiat on.

Did the checks clear this morning or something?
 
2012-06-27 05:19:14 PM

Super Chronic: Aarontology: vygramul: It's really Democrats who shouldn't like it. But these days, it's all about which party PASSED the bill than intellectual honesty.

The fact that the Gov. Romney's signature piece of legislation which he said should be applied to the nation one of the direct inspirations for the bill says that.

Originated by the Heritage Foundation in 1989, introduced as the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act in 1993 by 15 Republicans (including soon-to-be presidential nominee Bob Dole), re-introduced as the Healthy Americans Act in 2007 by Republican Bob Bennett....


and a thoroughly f*cked out plan of inaction that level headed progressives used to recognize as stillborn until obama became president and they all became corporate whores.
 
2012-06-27 05:19:19 PM

jigger: Wait, wouldn't young people be screwed by Obamacare? Lots of them don't have insurance because they don't want to pay for it. It's not even that expensive for them, even individual coverage is pretty cheap for them. The whole point of the mandate is to make them pay the insurance companies.


They can be on their parents plan until 26, or on an employer plan, or if they're unemployed or not making much money, the government covers them via the Medicare expansion.

The whole point of the mandate is to prevent assholes from exploiting the pre-existing condition clause. If we didn't have assholes, the mandate wouldn't be needed. But then again, a lot of things wouldn't be needed at that point.
 
2012-06-27 05:19:29 PM

MFL: Not they do not. The government cannot force someone to enter a market just so they can regulate it. This is fundamentally wrong.


Can the government regulate how people pay for services if they are participating in the market?
 
2012-06-27 05:20:28 PM

bulldg4life: Good lord...every thread is getting shiat on.

Did the checks clear this morning or something?


Everyone's amped up for tomorrow.
 
2012-06-27 05:20:59 PM

MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.

And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.


MeinRS6, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul I hope you get hit by a train, you clinically retarded farkstick.
 
2012-06-27 05:21:15 PM
I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.
 
2012-06-27 05:21:16 PM

relcec: an MRI costs $98 in japan.

until the american people demand action our situation will continue to get worse.

the answer to the problem of cost isn't a government prohibition on catastrophic plans and a government mandate on the young and healthy to purchase overpriced insurance products from for profit corporations to pad their bottom lines that these people neither want, need, or that are a anything but a rip off from a for profit insurance industry that plays wingman as healthcare providers everywhere rape american citizens with no lube.

this reform bill looks more like a corporatist wet dream and payoff for campaign contributions than anything designed to address the real problems in healthcare.
they need to take the word affordable out of affordable care act.


Fark doesnt allow font big enough for the THIS this post deserves.
 
2012-06-27 05:21:27 PM

MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.

And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.

I was going to reply to this point by point, refuting all of your hypotheses and illuminating for all to see your deep level of misunderstanding not only my post, but things in general, but then I remembered something.

There's no need.

Everyone on this board already knows what an ignorant misguided dickhole you are.

Such nasty name-calling. tsk tsk Those libby emotions really do rule your life. You should try facts and logic for a change.

The reason that you cannot respond in a meaningful way is because you know I'm right.

When something becomes not for profit, does it then become more or less innovative? There are many other questions I could ask along these lines, but that's as good as any to start.

Ask yourself - If you had a serious medical problem and you would benefit from the newest treatments with the best trained doctors, would you seek treatment in a not for profit communist country? You can go anywhere you want - do you pick a current or even former communist state?


He said, ironically failing to answer any of the LEGION of other posters who had proven his every point false.

/Then again: Cherry picking's what you Conservies do best
//be it Bible, Constitution, or history
 
2012-06-27 05:22:42 PM
The author of that article didn't actually read the legislation, his analysis was based solely on Obama stump speeches.
 
2012-06-27 05:22:43 PM

MFL: whidbey
If this does get struck down, we really need to be re-thinking the entire Court and whether they are serving the people of this country.

If this bill gets struck down they are saving the country. The majority of the country doesn't want this anyway.


[CITATION NEEDED].

Either way, with or without them though, the Federal Government has the right to mandate insurance coverage. It's a public health crisis that 40 million people are uninsured in this country.


Not they do not. The government cannot force someone to enter a market just so they can regulate it. This is fundamentally wrong.


Actually, they can. What part of "public health CRISIS" are you pretending to forget you read?



It's just whether this administration has the balls to stand up to the bullies on the right who don't believe that health care is a right.

Bullies? Really? You guys were the ones that bullied this thing through congress with a completely partisan vote. But I guess it's only partisan when republicans do it.


Pretty sure the "no" votes were partisan bullshiat, MFL. The Dems passed a very historic piece of legislation that has been touted by the AMA and the WHO, among others.

Pretty much only the "government-intrustion" paranoid types are the ones speaking out against this.


Healthcare is a service not a right. This is the fundamental disconnect between those who cherish freedom and those who demand free stuff. Period.

Yes, because affordable health insurance is "free stuff." You have an odd way of classifying things.
 
2012-06-27 05:24:00 PM

cc_rider: whidbey: If this does get struck down, we really need to be re-thinking the entire Court and whether they are serving the people of this country.

Either way, with or without them though, the Federal Government has the right to mandate insurance coverage. It's a public health crisis that 40 million people are uninsured in this country.

It's just whether this administration has the balls to stand up to the bullies on the right who don't believe that health care is a right.

My thoughts on this:

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."


:/


Yeats would be a brazillionaire if he were alive today, collecting royalties for that phrase....
 
2012-06-27 05:24:27 PM

John Paul Jones: jigger: Wait, wouldn't young people be screwed by Obamacare? Lots of them don't have insurance because they don't want to pay for it. It's not even that expensive for them, even individual coverage is pretty cheap for them. The whole point of the mandate is to make them pay the insurance companies.

They can be on their parents plan until 26, or on an employer plan, or if they're unemployed or not making much money, the government covers them via the Medicare expansion.

The whole point of the mandate is to prevent assholes from exploiting the pre-existing condition clause. If we didn't have assholes, the mandate wouldn't be needed. But then again, a lot of things wouldn't be needed at that point.


why not tax everyone and give everyone insurance and keep costs in check by governmental fiat?

oh yeah, tax is a four letter word for progressives during presidential election season (which never ends now), so we now get government coercion instead of an attempt to fix the problem.

and you guys used to be the conscience of the democrat party.
 
2012-06-27 05:25:02 PM

John Paul Jones: jigger: Wait, wouldn't young people be screwed by Obamacare? Lots of them don't have insurance because they don't want to pay for it. It's not even that expensive for them, even individual coverage is pretty cheap for them. The whole point of the mandate is to make them pay the insurance companies.

They can be on their parents plan until 26, or on an employer plan, or if they're unemployed or not making much money, the government covers them via the Medicare expansion.

The whole point of the mandate is to prevent assholes from exploiting the pre-existing condition clause. If we didn't have assholes, the mandate wouldn't be needed. But then again, a lot of things wouldn't be needed at that point.


I guess I consider 26-40 young. If their employer doesn't have an insurance plan for them, they could get cheap individual coverage, but many don't simply because they don't want to pay for it. The mandate says, tough shiat, you have to pay. The insurance companies are gonna get theirs.

Well, I guess we might as well cry for the insurance companies and then support their profits using force.
 
2012-06-27 05:26:16 PM

Empty Matchbook: who had proven his every point false.


lulz

Are you seriously that dense? You Farklibs really do think highly of your own nonsense.
 
2012-06-27 05:26:42 PM
Aww poo :-( I guess I have to vote for Obama now.


The mandate wasn't against poor people at all. Just keep telling yourself that.

/buying a bucket for those delicious tears tomorrow
//a pool for November
 
2012-06-27 05:27:23 PM

relcec: John Paul Jones: jigger: Wait, wouldn't young people be screwed by Obamacare? Lots of them don't have insurance because they don't want to pay for it. It's not even that expensive for them, even individual coverage is pretty cheap for them. The whole point of the mandate is to make them pay the insurance companies.

They can be on their parents plan until 26, or on an employer plan, or if they're unemployed or not making much money, the government covers them via the Medicare expansion.

The whole point of the mandate is to prevent assholes from exploiting the pre-existing condition clause. If we didn't have assholes, the mandate wouldn't be needed. But then again, a lot of things wouldn't be needed at that point.

why not tax everyone and give everyone insurance and keep costs in check by governmental fiat?

oh yeah, tax is a four letter word for progressives during presidential election season (which never ends now), so we now get government coercion instead of an attempt to fix the problem.

and you guys used to be the conscience of the democrat party.


I believe you can thank Grover Norquist for turning tax into a four-letter-word actually.
 
2012-06-27 05:28:00 PM

Ned Stark: relcec: an MRI costs $98 in japan.

until the american people demand action our situation will continue to get worse.

the answer to the problem of cost isn't a government prohibition on catastrophic plans and a government mandate on the young and healthy to purchase overpriced insurance products from for profit corporations to pad their bottom lines that these people neither want, need, or that are a anything but a rip off from a for profit insurance industry that plays wingman as healthcare providers everywhere rape american citizens with no lube.

this reform bill looks more like a corporatist wet dream and payoff for campaign contributions than anything designed to address the real problems in healthcare.
they need to take the word affordable out of affordable care act.

Fark doesnt allow font big enough for the THIS this post deserves.


Actually, we need a "Wrong Side of History Tag" for both of you.
 
2012-06-27 05:28:01 PM

whidbey: MFL: whidbey
If this does get struck down, we really need to be re-thinking the entire Court and whether they are serving the people of this country.

If this bill gets struck down they are saving the country. The majority of the country doesn't want this anyway.

[CITATION NEEDED].

Either way, with or without them though, the Federal Government has the right to mandate insurance coverage. It's a public health crisis that 40 million people are uninsured in this country.


Not they do not. The government cannot force someone to enter a market just so they can regulate it. This is fundamentally wrong.

Actually, they can. What part of "public health CRISIS" are you pretending to forget you read?



It's just whether this administration has the balls to stand up to the bullies on the right who don't believe that health care is a right.

Bullies? Really? You guys were the ones that bullied this thing through congress with a completely partisan vote. But I guess it's only partisan when republicans do it.

Pretty sure the "no" votes were partisan bullshiat, MFL. The Dems passed a very historic piece of legislation that has been touted by the AMA and the WHO, among others.

Pretty much only the "government-intrustion" paranoid types are the ones speaking out against this.


Healthcare is a service not a right. This is the fundamental disconnect between those who cherish freedom and those who demand free stuff. Period.

Yes, because affordable health insurance is "free stuff." You have an odd way of classifying things.


Because when I think good policy, I think of the bloody AMA.
 
2012-06-27 05:28:35 PM

Polly Ester: The author of that article didn't actually read the legislation, his analysis was based solely on Obama stump speeches.


Hell, I'd like to know who the hell has actually read the whole thing and understands it fully. The Supreme Court justices certainly didn't. No single legislator did. Probably the only people who did were lawyers and lobbyists for insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
 
2012-06-27 05:29:55 PM

GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.


If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?
 
2012-06-27 05:30:29 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I hope the SCOTUS does strike the mandate down. It'd be hilarious to see insurance companies pouring billions into Democrat races just to try and protect their own existence. If Republican policies led to bankruptcy in the name of freedom, the good businessman knows that reduced profit at continued existence is a far superior option.


What will be hilarious is the hundreds if not thousands of followup lawsuits against states for mandating drivers insurance.
 
2012-06-27 05:31:05 PM
If Obamacare gets struck down, I'm sure that working-class hero Ocongo is going to fight tooth and nail for a better single-payer system...oh wait...hehe
 
2012-06-27 05:31:07 PM

jigger: Polly Ester: The author of that article didn't actually read the legislation, his analysis was based solely on Obama stump speeches.

Hell, I'd like to know who the hell has actually read the whole thing and understands it fully. The Supreme Court justices certainly didn't. No single legislator did. Probably the only people who did were lawyers and lobbyists for insurance and pharmaceutical companies.


I did. It really wasn't that difficult to go through. It just took a few hours of stopping myself from getting distracted by bright lights and TV shows.
 
2012-06-27 05:32:36 PM
Just curious for the more legal-minded here, if the mandate gets thrown out, will that have any effect on states requiring you to have auto insurance to get a license?
 
2012-06-27 05:32:52 PM

Lando Lincoln: GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.

If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?


Nope, we won't be celebrating your loss.

We WILL however be celebrating the ruling that government cannot force citizens to buy X.
 
2012-06-27 05:32:55 PM

pisceandreamer: Serious question (and I know Fark ain't the place to ask, but...) - if the individual mandate is struck down, will this bring a public option back into play?


No, it means we go back to the laws prior to "Obamacare" being passed. With the current Congress (and the Congress we had when Obamacare passed, hence the reason we didn't get it), the chances of single payer passing is 0.00000000000000%.
 
2012-06-27 05:32:56 PM

whidbey: Ned Stark: relcec: an MRI costs $98 in japan.

until the american people demand action our situation will continue to get worse.

the answer to the problem of cost isn't a government prohibition on catastrophic plans and a government mandate on the young and healthy to purchase overpriced insurance products from for profit corporations to pad their bottom lines that these people neither want, need, or that are a anything but a rip off from a for profit insurance industry that plays wingman as healthcare providers everywhere rape american citizens with no lube.

this reform bill looks more like a corporatist wet dream and payoff for campaign contributions than anything designed to address the real problems in healthcare.
they need to take the word affordable out of affordable care act.

Fark doesnt allow font big enough for the THIS this post deserves.

Actually, we need a "Wrong Side of History Tag" for both of you.


Sorry champ, The Left always wins. If we can't get rid of this shiat bill, your kids will be more than happy to.
 
2012-06-27 05:33:28 PM

jigger: Polly Ester: The author of that article didn't actually read the legislation, his analysis was based solely on Obama stump speeches.

Hell, I'd like to know who the hell has actually read the whole thing and understands it fully. The Supreme Court justices certainly didn't. No single legislator did. Probably the only people who did were lawyers and lobbyists for insurance and pharmaceutical companies.


Least of all, Scalia, who revealed during oral argument that he believed the unpopular "Cornhusker Kickback" and "Louisiana Purchase" provisions made it into the bill. Instead of reading the text of the bill, a synopsis of it, or the legal briefs, Mr. Justice Scalia formed his opinion on the basis of Fox News talking points.

In general, anyone who thinks the individual mandate will be struck down, but the pre-existing condition discrimination ban will survive is delusional. The individual mandate is necessary to overcome the moral hazard posed by the pre-existing condition discrimination ban.
 
2012-06-27 05:33:41 PM

Ned Stark: Yes, because affordable health insurance is "free stuff." You have an odd way of classifying things.

Because when I think good policy, I think of the bloody AMA.


One of these days you'll post an eloquent diatribe about why you hate medical professionals.

And we'll ignore it.
 
2012-06-27 05:33:53 PM

zarberg: Just curious for the more legal-minded here, if the mandate gets thrown out, will that have any effect on states requiring you to have auto insurance to get a license?


Saying the federal government doesn't have the power to mandate insurance versus state governments mandating such things?
 
2012-06-27 05:33:54 PM
I don't get this whole uproar. I WANT socialized medicine. I am single, 42 years old, and self-employed. My health insurance plan is basically this: don't farking get sick.

On a bigger scale, I wonder why the Republicans are against universal healthcare. They were for it just a few years ago, Nixon was all about government-sponsored healthcare, and Romney friggin' implemented it. It would remove the burden of healthcare from businesses, allowing them to grown and focus that money on job creation. We could create new jobs with healthcare administrators instead of having Shirley in Accounting at Business A managing it, and Ron in Human Resources managing it at Company B right next door. In fact, every single company has at least one guy whose job it is to manage healthcare. How does that make sense?

Then there's the fact that the free market really isn't the free market when it comes to healthcare, but if there was only one payor, then they could pretty much dictate terms to the industry (within reason, of course). Plus the profit motive is gone when it comes to denying care to people in need.

Surely there's more to it than just being against healthcare reform because a black guy came up with it, right?
 
2012-06-27 05:34:02 PM

zarberg: Just curious for the more legal-minded here, if the mandate gets thrown out, will that have any effect on states requiring you to have auto insurance to get a license?


Driving is a privilege not a right.
 
2012-06-27 05:34:30 PM

Ned Stark: Actually, we need a "Wrong Side of History Tag" for both of you.

Sorry champ, The Left always wins. If we can't get rid of this shiat bill, your kids will be more than happy to.


Do you always daydream on Fark? What other visions of the future do you have for us?
 
2012-06-27 05:34:35 PM

penetrating_virga: government cannot force citizens to buy X.


Like insurance for old people and a crappy retirement plan?
 
2012-06-27 05:35:15 PM

bulldg4life: zarberg: Just curious for the more legal-minded here, if the mandate gets thrown out, will that have any effect on states requiring you to have auto insurance to get a license?

Saying the federal government doesn't have the power to mandate insurance versus state governments mandating such things?


State governments are not allowed to violate your rights any more than the federal government is allowed to.
 
2012-06-27 05:36:54 PM

penetrating_virga: Lando Lincoln: GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.

If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?

Nope, we won't be celebrating your loss.

We WILL however be celebrating the ruling that government cannot force citizens to buy X.


YAY 40 million uninsured people. FARK EM I GOT MINE.
 
2012-06-27 05:36:59 PM

JerkStore: On a bigger scale, I wonder why the Republicans are against universal healthcare. They were for it just a few years ago, Nixon was all about government-sponsored healthcare, and Romney friggin' implemented it. It would remove the burden of healthcare from businesses, allowing them to grown and focus that money on job creation. We could create new jobs with healthcare administrators instead of having Shirley in Accounting at Business A managing it, and Ron in Human Resources managing it at Company B right next door. In fact, every single company has at least one guy whose job it is to manage healthcare. How does that make sense?


Because they believe that basic health care like having a doctor save your life after getting run over by a car is a privilege that must be earned. Plain and simple.
 
2012-06-27 05:37:03 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: The mandate is necessary if pre-existing conditions denials are eliminated. There are plenty of scumbags in the country who will not get insurance until they get really sick.

I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.


All of this. Preach it brother!
 
2012-06-27 05:37:42 PM

Lando Lincoln: GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.

If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?



These teatards would celebrate millions of Americans, including children, losing their insurance, just to score some cheap political points. It's sickening how the politicians, pundits and the Right-wing media have turned us against each other.
 
2012-06-27 05:39:15 PM

Warlordtrooper: bulldg4life: zarberg: Just curious for the more legal-minded here, if the mandate gets thrown out, will that have any effect on states requiring you to have auto insurance to get a license?

Saying the federal government doesn't have the power to mandate insurance versus state governments mandating such things?

State governments are not allowed to violate your rights any more than the federal government is allowed to.


Unless the majority opinion resurrected the opinion in Lochner v. New York that you have a fundamental right to contract based on the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment, there is no right being infringed upon by a mandate to hold insurance.
 
2012-06-27 05:39:24 PM

zarberg: Just curious for the more legal-minded here, if the mandate gets thrown out, will that have any effect on states requiring you to have auto insurance to get a license?


Don't the states require you to have proof of financial liability to drive on public roads, not insurance. Every state I've lived in the rich or big businesses could just get certified by the state or be 'self insured'.
 
2012-06-27 05:39:31 PM
How many Americans does a broken healthcare system kill each year?
How many Americans do terrorists kill each year?

Guess where Republicans want the money to go?
 
2012-06-27 05:40:26 PM

Serious Black: jigger: Polly Ester: The author of that article didn't actually read the legislation, his analysis was based solely on Obama stump speeches.

Hell, I'd like to know who the hell has actually read the whole thing and understands it fully. The Supreme Court justices certainly didn't. No single legislator did. Probably the only people who did were lawyers and lobbyists for insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

I did. It really wasn't that difficult to go through. It just took a few hours of stopping myself from getting distracted by bright lights and TV shows.


A few hours to read 1000 pages of legalese?
 
2012-06-27 05:40:38 PM

cc_rider: Lando Lincoln: GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.

If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?


These teatards would celebrate millions of Americans, including children, losing their insurance, just to score some cheap political points. It's sickening how the politicians, pundits and the Right-wing media have turned us against each other.


Oh come on, save the butthurt for tomorrow. It'll be more fun. ;)
 
2012-06-27 05:40:46 PM

whidbey: penetrating_virga: Lando Lincoln: GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.

If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?

Nope, we won't be celebrating your loss.

We WILL however be celebrating the ruling that government cannot force citizens to buy X.

YAY 40 million uninsured people. FARK EM I GOT MINE.


As opposed to what?! Gimme Gimme.. I WANT YOURS!
 
2012-06-27 05:41:56 PM

Serious Black: Warlordtrooper: bulldg4life: zarberg: Just curious for the more legal-minded here, if the mandate gets thrown out, will that have any effect on states requiring you to have auto insurance to get a license?

Saying the federal government doesn't have the power to mandate insurance versus state governments mandating such things?

State governments are not allowed to violate your rights any more than the federal government is allowed to.

Unless the majority opinion resurrected the opinion in Lochner v. New York that you have a fundamental right to contract based on the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment, there is no right being infringed upon by a mandate to hold insurance.



Then that's that, no rights are being violated by mandating you purchase insurance. Be it Health or Driver.
 
2012-06-27 05:42:18 PM

penetrating_virga: whidbey: penetrating_virga: Lando Lincoln: GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.

If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?

Nope, we won't be celebrating your loss.

We WILL however be celebrating the ruling that government cannot force citizens to buy X.

YAY 40 million uninsured people. FARK EM I GOT MINE.

As opposed to what?! Gimme Gimme.. I WANT YOURS!


Nobody's saying that sh*t.

Pretty much the chorus is FARK YOU I GOT MINE, and it's been that way for decades now.
 
2012-06-27 05:42:36 PM
Yeah, this really shouldn't be a surprise. It'll be 5-4 striking down the individual mandate, with Roberts writing the majority opinion. The big question is whether SCOTUS will strike down the whole bill or try to sever the mandate from the rest. Since I don't see this Court playing the role of legislature to try to untangle the mandate from the rest, I think they'll kick it back to Congress to try and fix.

ObamaCare was a huge political mistake and a huge policy mistake. It was a huge policy mistake because it was never really thought through and was overly complicated and added layers and layers of new bureaucracy. Then the Democrats fudged the numbers to get a CBO scoring showing that it would reduce the deficit - by putting in cuts to Medicare that would never happen and things like the CLASS system that wouldn't actually save money in the real world. And then they passed it on a nearly pure party-line vote when they had plenty of polling data and the Scott Brown victory to show that Americans really didn't want it.

If we wanted to fix the health care system we'd start moving away from third-party payors and make health insurance portable and saleable across state lines. Your employer doesn't buy your car insurance or your homeowner's insurance or your food? So why the hell should they pay for your health insurance? And for that matter, you don't pay for gas by submitting a claim to your auto insurance - so why are we paying for regular and predictable medical expenses with insurance.

Insurance is for hedging risk, not for payment. That's the fundamental mistake we made, and nearly everything that's farked up about health care in America is because of that. If we started paying for health care the way we pay for everything else we'd see real cost controls and everyone would have access to affordable care. The problem isn't that America has a "capitalist free-market" health care system, it's that we don't. There's no price transparency, there's no functioning market, and the whole industry is massively inefficient. We need to fix that, not centralize all the problems into government.
 
2012-06-27 05:43:55 PM
Oh cool. THIS again.

Save your energy being google research ACA 'experts'....tomorrow is the real prize. Remember kids, the SCOTUS is just and good when it votes our way, and evil and big stupid meanies when they don't.
 
2012-06-27 05:44:24 PM

Warlordtrooper: Then that's that, no rights are being violated by mandating you purchase insurance. Be it Health or Driver.


There wasn't before.

You do not have the "right" to be a danger to others on the road or to be a burden to the rest of us by being uninsured.
 
2012-06-27 05:44:57 PM

Lando Lincoln: Are you going to be celebrating that?


Celebrating? He'll be masturbating while pushing a Coke bottle up his ass.
 
2012-06-27 05:44:59 PM

Lando Lincoln: vygramul: The funny thing is that anyone with even a modicum of understanding of the Republican position on economics and government understands why it was conservatives who proposed the individual mandate, and why it makes complete sense from a Republican point of view.

It's really Democrats who shouldn't like it. But these days, it's all about which party PASSED the bill than intellectual honesty.

I understand that it was a crappy way to keep the insurance companies in the money loop. But nearly the entire Democratic party shied away from even bringing up the single-payer topic, so this is the best that we could get.


Well, I certainly wouldn't dispute THAT.
 
2012-06-27 05:45:11 PM

jigger: Serious Black: jigger: Polly Ester: The author of that article didn't actually read the legislation, his analysis was based solely on Obama stump speeches.

Hell, I'd like to know who the hell has actually read the whole thing and understands it fully. The Supreme Court justices certainly didn't. No single legislator did. Probably the only people who did were lawyers and lobbyists for insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

I did. It really wasn't that difficult to go through. It just took a few hours of stopping myself from getting distracted by bright lights and TV shows.

A few hours to read 1000 pages of legalese?


It's not really fine print, wall to wall text. It's a lot of lines like:

a) Every individual shall purchase qualifying health insurance.
b) Any individual who does not purchase qualifying health insurance shall pay a fine of:
1) Two percent of his gross income, or
2) $750.

Contrast this with, say:

A question has been made concerning the constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement; but there is certainty no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare," with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States; and that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to numbers, ascertained by a census or enumeration, taken on the principles prescribed in the constitution," and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State."

These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are no less comprehensive thin the payment of the public debts, and the providing for the common defence and general welfare. The terms "general welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded; otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the "general welfare;" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is, therefore, of necessity, left to the discretion of the National Legislature to pronounce upon the objects which
concern the general welfare, and for which, under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt, that whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce, are within the sphere of the national councils, as far as regards an application of money.

The only qualification of the generality of the phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this: That the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, be general, and not local; its operation extending, in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction, from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude, which is granted, too, in express terms, would not carry a power to do any other thing {251} not authorized in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
 
2012-06-27 05:45:31 PM

jigger: Serious Black: jigger: Polly Ester: The author of that article didn't actually read the legislation, his analysis was based solely on Obama stump speeches.

Hell, I'd like to know who the hell has actually read the whole thing and understands it fully. The Supreme Court justices certainly didn't. No single legislator did. Probably the only people who did were lawyers and lobbyists for insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

I did. It really wasn't that difficult to go through. It just took a few hours of stopping myself from getting distracted by bright lights and TV shows.

A few hours to read 1000 pages of legalese?


Seriously. That said, I'm a relatively fast reader, so somebody who isn't as quick as I am might have taken more like eight hours to half a day to read through it all. And I certainly don't recall every single infinitesimally small detail of the bill, but I generally know what sections to look at in the bill to give you the exact text of the provision within a minute (presuming I have access to THOMAS of course). Yesterday, some dumbass tried to tell me that Congress has explicitly forbidden interstate sales of health insurance, and I kindly pointed him to Section 1333 of the bill that explicitly authorizes interstate sales in two different settings.
 
2012-06-27 05:45:35 PM

timujin: MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.

And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.

I was going to reply to this point by point, refuting all of your hypotheses and illuminating for all to see your deep level of misunderstanding not only my post, but things in general, but then I remembered something.

There's no need.

Everyone on this board already knows what an ignorant misguided dickhole you are.

Such nasty name-calling. tsk tsk Those libby emotions really do rule your life. You should try facts and logic for a change.

The reason that you cannot respond in a meaningful way is because you know I'm right.


He responded, he didn't speak to your points, but he responded. It seems that is another word you don't know the meaning of. In his response, he essentially said "this" to the posts immediately before his, the ones you purposefully ignored. Rather, you attacked his post because it allowed you to continue your narrative. If you really have any notions of how socialized medicine works (and here's a hint, it has nothing to do with "communism") and how it relates to single payer, then, please, expound upon them.


Right, that's what I thought... pick the post with the weakest argument against your position, attack that argument and ignore the rest that stomp your "thoughts" into a pile of wet goo.
 
2012-06-27 05:46:20 PM

penetrating_virga: zarberg: Just curious for the more legal-minded here, if the mandate gets thrown out, will that have any effect on states requiring you to have auto insurance to get a license?

Driving is a privilege not a right.


I'm curious about this.

People are forced to pay for the roads and other infrastructure, but must be skill tested to prove themselves worthy of the privilege of driving a vehicle on said roads and infrastructure.

People are forced to pay for government schools. Their kids are forced to go these schools if they haven't gone to some other form of school. If they go to these schools, they must be medically tested to prove themselves worthy of the right to attend a government school. Or, at least most would call it a right.
 
2012-06-27 05:46:44 PM
In his dissent on Arizona SB 1070, Scalia violated procedure by going out of his way to bring up facts that were not germane, referring to the Obama DREAM Act policy that had just been announced.
So are there betting odds as to whether he uses the phrase "death panel" in his opinion (ruling, concurring, or dissenting) on PPACA?
 
2012-06-27 05:47:02 PM
Bullshiat. Obamacare is bad for young people, because it makes age-actuarialism illegal, which forces young, poor people to subsidize the health care costs of rich, old people. I'm a liberal democrat and I hate this stupid bill. It had some good ideas, but it was too compromised from the get go thanks to President Pantywaist's prenegotiating with the GOP.
 
2012-06-27 05:48:00 PM

bugontherug: jigger: Serious Black: jigger: Polly Ester: The author of that article didn't actually read the legislation, his analysis was based solely on Obama stump speeches.

Hell, I'd like to know who the hell has actually read the whole thing and understands it fully. The Supreme Court justices certainly didn't. No single legislator did. Probably the only people who did were lawyers and lobbyists for insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

I did. It really wasn't that difficult to go through. It just took a few hours of stopping myself from getting distracted by bright lights and TV shows.

A few hours to read 1000 pages of legalese?

It's not really fine print, wall to wall text. It's a lot of lines like:

a) Every individual shall purchase qualifying health insurance.
b) Any individual who does not purchase qualifying health insurance shall pay a fine of:
1) Two percent of his gross income, or
2) $750.

Contrast this with, say:

A question has been made concerning the constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement; but there is certainty no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare," with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States; and that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to numbers, ascertained by a census or enumeration, taken on the principles prescribed in the constitution," and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State."

These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are no less comprehensive thin the payment of the public debts, and the providing for the common defence and general welfare. The terms "general welfar ...




Fine ≠ tax.
 
2012-06-27 05:48:36 PM

FlashHarry: i would have thought big insurance would've supported dems, but this is not the case.


Insurance companies probably feel they have more to gain from tort reform, which the GOP loves, than the ACA. It is a winning combo for the GOP and Insurance Companies. Blame the lawyers, reduce risk and keep increasing premiums... what is not to love.
 
2012-06-27 05:48:41 PM

Serious Black: And I certainly don't recall every single infinitesimally small detail of the bill,


But that's where they getcha.
 
2012-06-27 05:49:01 PM

vygramul: It's really Democrats who shouldn't like it. But these days, it's all about which party PASSED the bill than intellectual honesty.


Democrats don't like the insurance mandate. Democrats wanted single payer. Part of the reason that support for Obama is so soft right now is because instead doing what the public asked for, the Democrats tried to "compromise" with a bunch of obstructionists Republicans who refused every attempt to negotiate in good faith.

Nobody on the left asked for a huge insurance company giveaway that creates a behemoth new public-private partnership boondoggle and will throw away hundreds of billions of dollars a year on billing paperwork. The Republicans asked for that, and the Democrats caved in and gave it to them, and they caved for no reason that anyone on the left has ever understood.

If you ask me, the Democrats should have just expanded medicare to every man, woman, and child in the United States. Then they could have let the Republican Attorneys General try to strike down Medicare. The lulz would have been epic.
 
2012-06-27 05:49:05 PM

penetrating_virga: Lando Lincoln: GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.

If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?

Nope, we won't be celebrating your loss.

We WILL however be celebrating the ruling that government cannot force citizens to buy X.


Whether it is stated as such or not, the government does force us to buy goods and services. We buy everything from police and fire protection, to a military, to materials and labor to keep roads and traffic signals in working order, to schools running, the paychecks at city hall. They come in the form of a tax, but that's just a matter of nomenclature. They force you to buy these things. Would you be happy if they just put the cost of this onto some tax, be it income, property, or whatever other tax? The difference is in name only; they aren't calling this a tax, they are calling it a mandate to buy a service.

Lando Lincoln: GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.

If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?


Yes, they will be celebrating that. They have stated that they would rather watch the whole country crumble and fail than to have Obama win a second term. This is out of spite, pure and simple. Many of them will also suffer the same loss as you, or even worse, but they will still celebrate. They are so enveloped in their anger that they don't care if they get hurt, so long as you get hurt too.
 
2012-06-27 05:49:31 PM

zarberg: Just curious for the more legal-minded here, if the mandate gets thrown out, will that have any effect on states requiring you to have auto insurance to get a license?


No.

The states have the police power - they can do whatever the hell they want so long as they don't violate certain parts of the Constitution that have been "incorporated" onto the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The federal government has limited and enumerated powers. They do not have general police powers. The federal government doesn't mandate that you carry auto insurance - the state does.

The question is whether the individual insurance mandate is part of the powers given to the federal government through the Commerce Clause - and the Supreme Court is more likely than not going to say it isn't.

That won't effect the states because the states are not limited by the Commerce Clause. A state can force you to have auto insurance to drive, they can impose their own individual mandates, they can make you buy broccoli if they wanted. The Constitution limits some state powers, but only a few.

This is part of the federal system of government in the United States.
 
2012-06-27 05:49:51 PM
thank-you subby for the elventymillionth thread on how the stoopid southerners vote against their interests without any further explanation

/end sarcasm
 
2012-06-27 05:51:34 PM

jigger: Fine ≠ tax.


Way to miss the point, re: the imagined time consumed in reading a "thousand page" bill.
 
2012-06-27 05:51:42 PM
A decision that angers consumers, Democrats, and insurance companies alike-that would be quite a feat, even by this court's standards.

Why would Democrats be angered by the court striking down only the part of the bill that Democrats had to insert to get a single Republican (Olympia Snowe) to support the bill? I would be thrilled if only the mandate and not the preexisting condition clause was struck down. Stick it to the f*ckers at Aetna.
 
2012-06-27 05:51:44 PM

Agneska: cc_rider: Lando Lincoln: GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.

If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?


These teatards would celebrate millions of Americans, including children, losing their insurance, just to score some cheap political points. It's sickening how the politicians, pundits and the Right-wing media have turned us against each other.

Oh come on, save the butthurt for tomorrow. It'll be more fun. ;)


A year and a half ago, my best friend lost his life due to lack of a common antibiotic and a bit of follow-up care because he lost his health insurance and his job due to a work-related injury. He died with an SSI claim tied up in the courts for 5 years.

That kind of shiat is supposed to happen in third-world countries, not here..

What I am feeling is not butthurt, but utter contempt for the people who would allow this to keep happening, so EABOD and go troll somewhere else, farktard.
 
2012-06-27 05:52:15 PM

Descartes: thank-you subby for the elventymillionth thread on how the stoopid southerners vote against their interests without any further explanation

/end sarcasm


Everyone should only vote for their own selfish interests. Democracy is merely collective Randian individualism.
 
2012-06-27 05:52:27 PM

doyner: MeinRS6: And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.

[notsureifserious.jpg]


Believe me, he's serious.

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-06-27 05:53:00 PM
1) It only 'hurts' insurance companies in the short term. If you view the mandate and the PPACA generally as a step in the direction of single payer, well that clearly would not benefit insurance companies.

2) In both 2008 and 2010, while republicans received more than democrats from insurance companies, the spread was not large. In 2008 dems received about $22M of $50M total (roughly 45%), and in 2010 they received about $18M of $40M total (roughly 45%). So far in 2012 that spread has widened substantially with Dems receiving only about $10M of $25M (roughly 40%). So while they lean GOP, it's not by as much as the headline suggests. (ty opensecrets)

3) Young people are part of the group getting 'screwed' by PPACA. Young people with pre-existing conditions (potentially) are. In any system based on community rating (which PPACA would be) the young and healthy end up subsidizing the old and infirm. This is especially true under PPACA, where the plans that make the most sense for a healthy young person (catastrophic coverage) don't qualify, requiring young people to purchase more insurance than they actually need. Not that there's anything wrong with this idea, or with community rating. Every old person was young at some point, so it will balance out over a life time. But to say that young people would necessarily benefit a great deal under PPACA is suspect.
 
2012-06-27 05:53:30 PM

bugontherug: jigger: Fine ≠ tax.

Way to miss the point, re: the imagined time consumed in reading a "thousand page" bill.


The legislators and justices would have to do much more than merely let their eyes pass over the words, though.
 
2012-06-27 05:54:16 PM

jigger: Serious Black: jigger: Polly Ester: The author of that article didn't actually read the legislation, his analysis was based solely on Obama stump speeches.

Hell, I'd like to know who the hell has actually read the whole thing and understands it fully. The Supreme Court justices certainly didn't. No single legislator did. Probably the only people who did were lawyers and lobbyists for insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

I did. It really wasn't that difficult to go through. It just took a few hours of stopping myself from getting distracted by bright lights and TV shows.

A few hours to read 1000 pages of legalese?


Oh, the "bill is logn therefore BAD BAD BAD" argument.

These people are there TO READ BILLS. They are paid TO READ BILLS. 100,000 page bill? Oh well, don't be a Senator/Representative.
 
2012-06-27 05:54:56 PM

The Larch: Democrats don't like the insurance mandate. Democrats wanted single payer. Part of the reason that support for Obama is so soft right now is because instead doing what the public asked for, the Democrats tried had to "compromise" compromise with blue dog Democrats representing conservative states in order to pass any reform bill at all over the Republican filibuster a bunch of obstructionists Republicans who refused every attempt to negotiate in good faith.

 
2012-06-27 05:56:18 PM

jigger: bugontherug: jigger: Fine ≠ tax.

Way to miss the point, re: the imagined time consumed in reading a "thousand page" bill.

The legislators and justices would have to do much more than merely let their eyes pass over the words, though.


Lawyers get pretty efficient at digesting pages and pages of legalese.
 
2012-06-27 05:57:19 PM

Epoch_Zero: These people are there TO READ BILLS.


This congressman lets you in on a little secret.

Link

Link
 
2012-06-27 05:57:29 PM

cc_rider: Agneska: cc_rider: Lando Lincoln: GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.

If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?


These teatards would celebrate millions of Americans, including children, losing their insurance, just to score some cheap political points. It's sickening how the politicians, pundits and the Right-wing media have turned us against each other.

Oh come on, save the butthurt for tomorrow. It'll be more fun. ;)

A year and a half ago, my best friend lost his life due to lack of a common antibiotic and a bit of follow-up care because he lost his health insurance and his job due to a work-related injury. He died with an SSI claim tied up in the courts for 5 years.

That kind of shiat is supposed to happen in third-world countries, not here..

What I am feeling is not butthurt, but utter contempt for the people who would allow this to keep happening, so EABOD and go troll somewhere else, farktard.


Do you feel utter contempt for the healthcare providers who withheld treatment and watched him die because he wouldn't give them money?
 
2012-06-27 05:57:59 PM

whidbey: Ned Stark: Actually, we need a "Wrong Side of History Tag" for both of you.

Sorry champ, The Left always wins. If we can't get rid of this shiat bill, your kids will be more than happy to.

Do you always daydream on Fark? What other visions of the future do you have for us?


That's just basic extrapolation. Essentially every major contest in this country, and in fact every democracy, has eventually ended in at least a partial leftist victory. This giant clusterfark idea of forcing people to buy in with the industry that's most responsible for the current crisis might stand for a little while, and add a touch more human misery to the world while it does, but at the very least a public option is comming. Either in a few years as a response to an overturn tomorrow or in a decade or three in response to what a terrible idea this was.

If I start daydreaming it'll be about a cowboys super bowl.
 
2012-06-27 06:01:44 PM

bugontherug: jigger: bugontherug: jigger: Fine ≠ tax.

Way to miss the point, re: the imagined time consumed in reading a "thousand page" bill.

The legislators and justices would have to do much more than merely let their eyes pass over the words, though.

Lawyers get pretty efficient at digesting pages and pages of legalese.


And so all implications of all the language are clear to them?

Do they do an analysis like the following?

This part of the law says "The Congress shall have Power...To regulate Commerce...among the several States" therefore the test as to whether Congress can regulate it would be that it is:

a) among the states
b) commerce
 
2012-06-27 06:01:46 PM

WombatControl: And then they passed it on a nearly pure party-line vote when they had plenty of polling data and the Scott Brown victory to show that Americans really didn't want it.

Several sitting Republicans in Congress were sponsors or co-sponsors of bills like Wyden-Bennett that very closely resembled the final product in ACA. The reason it was a party-line vote is because the GOP decided that they wanted to make it Obama's Waterloo and essentially forced everyone to vote no. And Scott Brown winning his special election meant nothing for the national picture on ACA, just like Kathy Hochul winning her special election meant nothing for the national picture on Paul Ryan's budget.

If we wanted to fix the health care system we'd start moving away from third-party payors and make health insurance portable and saleable across state lines. Your employer doesn't buy your car insurance or your homeowner's insurance or your food? So why the hell should they pay for your health insurance?

I'm with you on decoupling health insurance from employment, but there is absolutely no evidence that letting health insurance companies sell policies across state lines will fix anything. The evidence from what happened in the wake of Marquette v. First of Omaha with regards to the credit card industry shows that it will almost certainly result in a few states repealing all of their pro-consumer insurance regulations to attract every insurance company into their state and shut down the intrastate market in virtually every other state. And it would probably be worse with health insurance companies because of the proliferation of insurance networks for accessing doctors and hospitals.

Insurance is for hedging risk, not for payment.

What about for people with pre-existing conditions like heart attacks, cancer, strokes, diabetes, asthma, or (I assure you this is real) unexplainable symptoms? There's a reason health insurance companies frequently refuse to offer insurance to people with PREX: there is no way to make an insurance plan for these people actuarially sound. Are we just supposed to tell sick people that they don't deserve life-saving health care?

There's no price transparency, there's no functioning market, and the whole industry is massively inefficient.

There have been a few bills proposed to various committees in Congress demanding that health care providers and insurance companies provide full transparency of their costs. None of them have ever even received a vote in committee AFAIK. Talk to your Congressman and Senators if you think this is a problem; that's what I did, and none of them have ever made waves to get the bills a floor vote.

 
2012-06-27 06:02:16 PM

jigger: Epoch_Zero: These people are there TO READ BILLS.

This congressman lets you in on a little secret.

Link

Link


In any event, there are professionals who job it is to read and summarize pages and pages of legalese like this. If you look at any Supreme Court opinion, for example, it begins with a synopsis called a "syllabus." The syllabus is a fraction of the full length opinion, but efficiently conveys its key points. I've little doubt similar bill synopses are available to legislators. Whether or not they read even those, I don't know. But it isn't like you need to read every line of text to understand broad ideas like:

1) imposes a penalty for people who don't buy qualifying insurance,
2) bans pre-existing condition discrimination
3) provides subsidies for those who cannot afford to buy insurance
4) expands Medicaid,
5) etc.
 
2012-06-27 06:03:06 PM

MeinRS6: vpb: being looked down upon by "liberal elites" might be a more urgent problem to them

You are failing to recognize the fact that the agenda of "liberal elites" is bad for the country. So that's why not everyone responds to them in a positive manner. No graph required for that one.


You mean liberal elites like Thomas Paine who effectively said "the church is a lie"?
 
2012-06-27 06:03:07 PM

Ned Stark: whidbey: Ned Stark: Actually, we need a "Wrong Side of History Tag" for both of you.

Sorry champ, The Left always wins. If we can't get rid of this shiat bill, your kids will be more than happy to.

Do you always daydream on Fark? What other visions of the future do you have for us?

That's just basic extrapolation. Essentially every major contest in this country, and in fact every democracy, has eventually ended in at least a partial leftist victory.


How optimistic of you.

This giant clusterfark idea of forcing people to buy in with the industry that's most responsible for the current crisis might stand for a little while, and add a touch more human misery to the world while it does, but at the very least a public option is comming. Either in a few years as a response to an overturn tomorrow or in a decade or three in response to what a terrible idea this was.

Yeah well keep in mind that if we have single-payer or UHC it will also be mandated, so I'm not sure really what your whole point is.
 
2012-06-27 06:04:29 PM

bugontherug: 5) etc.


That's where they getcha.
 
2012-06-27 06:04:41 PM

MeinRS6: Empty Matchbook: who had proven his every point false.

lulz

Are you seriously that dense? You Farklibs really do think highly of your own nonsense.


BINGO! I just needed "Deflection" and "Ad-Hominem" on my board! I win "Argument Avoidance" Bingo!!!

/SUCK IT, EVERYONE ELSE IN THE THREAD!!!
 
2012-06-27 06:05:07 PM

jigger: Serious Black: And I certainly don't recall every single infinitesimally small detail of the bill,

But that's where they getcha.


Go on, ask me a question about any provision of the bill.
 
2012-06-27 06:05:23 PM

jigger: Do they do an analysis like the following?

This part of the law says "The Congress shall have Power...To regulate Commerce...among the several States" therefore the test as to whether Congress can regulate it would be that it is:

a) among the states
b) commerce



Yes, and they even read text which angers right-wing ideologues. For example:

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
 
2012-06-27 06:10:40 PM

whidbey: Ned Stark: whidbey: Ned Stark: Actually, we need a "Wrong Side of History Tag" for both of you.

Sorry champ, The Left always wins. If we can't get rid of this shiat bill, your kids will be more than happy to.

Do you always daydream on Fark? What other visions of the future do you have for us?

That's just basic extrapolation. Essentially every major contest in this country, and in fact every democracy, has eventually ended in at least a partial leftist victory.

How optimistic of you.

This giant clusterfark idea of forcing people to buy in with the industry that's most responsible for the current crisis might stand for a little while, and add a touch more human misery to the world while it does, but at the very least a public option is comming. Either in a few years as a response to an overturn tomorrow or in a decade or three in response to what a terrible idea this was.

Yeah well keep in mind that if we have single-payer or UHC it will also be mandated, so I'm not sure really what your whole point is.


I'm not against the mandate per se. Its mandating the spending and also leaving profit takers directly in the loop. That's a terrible idea. Also, capping said profit takers salaries as a % of their health expenditures. That's a REALLY terrible idea.
 
2012-06-27 06:12:12 PM

bugontherug: jigger: Do they do an analysis like the following?

This part of the law says "The Congress shall have Power...To regulate Commerce...among the several States" therefore the test as to whether Congress can regulate it would be that it is:

a) among the states
b) commerce


Yes,


Sure they do. Growing weed in your basement for your own consumption is commerce among the several states, don't ya know?
 
2012-06-27 06:13:06 PM

bugontherug: The Larch: Democrats don't like the insurance mandate. Democrats wanted single payer. Part of the reason that support for Obama is so soft right now is because instead doing what the public asked for, the Democrats tried had to "compromise" compromise with blue dog Democrats representing conservative states in order to pass any reform bill at all over the Republican filibuster a bunch of obstructionists Republicans who refused every attempt to negotiate in good faith.


You keep your crunchy peanut butter facts out of my frothy chocolate rage!

Regardless, you have to grant that Republicans did refuse to negotiate the Affordable Care Act in good faith. In return, I'll grant that the Democrats never had a caucus cohesive enough to pass a more courageous Affordable Care Act on their own. And together, I think we both agree that many on the left are deeply unhappy with the result.
 
2012-06-27 06:14:23 PM

jigger: bugontherug: jigger: Do they do an analysis like the following?

This part of the law says "The Congress shall have Power...To regulate Commerce...among the several States" therefore the test as to whether Congress can regulate it would be that it is:

a) among the states
b) commerce


Yes,

Sure they do. Growing weed in your basement for your own consumption is commerce among the several states, don't ya know?


Scalia sure thought so, although that was seven years ago and well before he "saw the light".
 
2012-06-27 06:16:43 PM

jigger: Sure they do. Growing weed in your basement for your own consumption is commerce among the several states, don't ya know?


No, but according to conservative icon Antonin Scalia, the regulation of marijuana for personal consumption is necessary and proper to effectuate the legitimate regulation of commerce in marijuana.
 
2012-06-27 06:18:14 PM

The Larch: bugontherug: The Larch: Democrats don't like the insurance mandate. Democrats wanted single payer. Part of the reason that support for Obama is so soft right now is because instead doing what the public asked for, the Democrats tried had to "compromise" compromise with blue dog Democrats representing conservative states in order to pass any reform bill at all over the Republican filibuster a bunch of obstructionists Republicans who refused every attempt to negotiate in good faith.

You keep your crunchy peanut butter facts out of my frothy chocolate rage!

Regardless, you have to grant that Republicans did refuse to negotiate the Affordable Care Act in good faith. In return, I'll grant that the Democrats never had a caucus cohesive enough to pass a more courageous Affordable Care Act on their own. And together, I think we both agree that many on the left are deeply unhappy with the result.


Fair enough.
 
2012-06-27 06:18:58 PM

constructor5179: zarberg: Just curious for the more legal-minded here, if the mandate gets thrown out, will that have any effect on states requiring you to have auto insurance to get a license?

Don't the states require you to have proof of financial liability to drive on public roads, not insurance. Every state I've lived in the rich or big businesses could just get certified by the state or be 'self insured'.


They could, but rarely do unless they're Steve Jobs-level paranoid about keeping their info private. And with an insurer you get to have someone else take the initial hit as opposed to yourself.

/McCarran-Feguson made the "state auto insurance mandates are unconstitutional" bs moot.
 
2012-06-27 06:18:59 PM

Serious Black: jigger: Serious Black: And I certainly don't recall every single infinitesimally small detail of the bill,

But that's where they getcha.

Go on, ask me a question about any provision of the bill.


In Section 1003 where it amends Part C of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 300gg-91) it says:

JUSTIFICATION AND DISCLOSURE.-The process established under paragraph (1) shall require health insurance issuers to submit to the Secretary and the relevant State a justification for an unreasonable premium increase prior to the implementation of the increase. Such issuers shall prominently post such information on their Internet websites. The Secretary shall ensure the public disclosure of information on
such increases and justifications for all health insurance issuers.


Are only "unreasonable" premium increases to be posted on the insurance company's website? What about "reasonable" increases? What constitutes "unreasonable"? Who decides that? Can it be anywhere on the website? Does it have to be easily found by any random grandma? Or just somewhere in there?
 
2012-06-27 06:19:39 PM
So who's going to get screwed if Obamacare is struck down.

well your mom, of course. and she'll get screwed regardless of what the scotus does.
 
2012-06-27 06:20:02 PM

Serious Black: jigger: bugontherug: jigger: Do they do an analysis like the following?

This part of the law says "The Congress shall have Power...To regulate Commerce...among the several States" therefore the test as to whether Congress can regulate it would be that it is:

a) among the states
b) commerce


Yes,

Sure they do. Growing weed in your basement for your own consumption is commerce among the several states, don't ya know?

Scalia sure thought so, although that was seven years ago and well before he "saw the light".


And ten years after he saw the light in Lopez. This may come as a shock to you, but Scalia is not principled.
 
2012-06-27 06:20:34 PM
colon_pow: So who's going to get screwed if Obamacare is struck down.

well your mom, of course. and she'll get screwed regardless of what the scotus does.


You're mother's a whore Trebeck
 
2012-06-27 06:20:37 PM

bugontherug: jigger: Fine ≠ tax.

Way to miss the point, re: the imagined time consumed in reading a "thousand page" bill.


Don't forget, during oral arguments, Scalia said he didn't want to read the bill and invoked the Eighth Amendment as his defense.

bugontherug: The Larch: Democrats don't like the insurance mandate. Democrats wanted single payer. Part of the reason that support for Obama is so soft right now is because instead doing what the public asked for, the Democrats tried had to "compromise" compromise with blue dog Democrats representing conservative states in order to pass any reform bill at all over the Republican filibuster a bunch of obstructionists Republicans who refused every attempt to negotiate in good faith.


Remember, it's not even that Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, and Bill Nelson and alleged moderates Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins would have voted against a public option, much less single-payer. It's that they were willing to filibuster it, so that it would never even come up to a vote.

BTW, another phrase that I want odds on Scalia using in his opinion: "Cornhusker kickback", referring to a clause that does not appear in PPACA or anything else that ever became law. I put the probability at 60% or higher.
 
2012-06-27 06:23:31 PM

RminusQ: BTW, another phrase that I want odds on Scalia using in his opinion: "Cornhusker kickback", referring to a clause that does not appear in PPACA or anything else that ever became law. I put the probability at 60% or higher.


As I mentioned above, Scalia revealed at oral arguments that he believed those provisions made it into the final bill. Comedy gold.
 
2012-06-27 06:30:45 PM

jigger: Serious Black: jigger: Serious Black: And I certainly don't recall every single infinitesimally small detail of the bill,

But that's where they getcha.

Go on, ask me a question about any provision of the bill.

In Section 1003 where it amends Part C of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 300gg-91) it says:

JUSTIFICATION AND DISCLOSURE.-The process established under paragraph (1) shall require health insurance issuers to submit to the Secretary and the relevant State a justification for an unreasonable premium increase prior to the implementation of the increase. Such issuers shall prominently post such information on their Internet websites. The Secretary shall ensure the public disclosure of information on
such increases and justifications for all health insurance issuers.


Are only "unreasonable" premium increases to be posted on the insurance company's website? What about "reasonable" increases? What constitutes "unreasonable"? Who decides that? Can it be anywhere on the website? Does it have to be easily found by any random grandma? Or just somewhere in there?


The law created a Rate Review program to handle these questions. States are allowed to handle the Rate Review program in-house, or they can let the federal government handle the Rate Review themselves. From what I've seen, almost every state decided to do the rate reviewing themselves rather than hand the duties to the federal government, though the federal government has issued several grants totaling hundreds of millions of dollars to build on the work already accomplished in many states. The people in these programs that make the decisions fall under the purview of the state's insurance commissioner (in my case, Sandy Praeger). The regulations released for handling rate reviews said a few things:

1) Any premium increase above 10% is automatically subject to review and must be accompanied by evidence for assumptions and trends in future health care cost increases,
2) If the regulators concur with the evidence showing that the rate increase is necessary, they can approve it, or
3) If the regulators believe the evidence does not show the rate increase is necessary, they can reject it.

Note that steps two and three really only occur if your state has a law giving the program authority to do so; otherwise, its rulings are merely advisory.
 
2012-06-27 06:31:55 PM

RminusQ: bugontherug: The Larch: Democrats don't like the insurance mandate. Democrats wanted single payer. Part of the reason that support for Obama is so soft right now is because instead doing what the public asked for, the Democrats tried had to "compromise" compromise with blue dog Democrats representing conservative states in order to pass any reform bill at all over the Republican filibuster a bunch of obstructionists Republicans who refused every attempt to negotiate in good faith.

Remember, it's not even that Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, and Bill Nelson and alleged moderates Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins would have voted against a public option, much less single-payer. It's that they were willing to filibuster it, so that it would never even come up to a vote.



except you are ignoring the part where Obama made the deal kill the public option before negotiations even began in congress that summer. he nuked it before democratic congressmen even could hash out their differences about it.


you see, this what I like about you people:

half the time you argue obama is the most intelligent man in history. a 5 dimensional chessmaster from the future who hands down executive proclamations for the good of the innocent immigrant children, assassinates american citizens for world peace, and abolishes habeas corpus for our safety.


the other half of the time you argue he is an impotent enuch, incapable of closing gitmo and bringing the 100 odd detainees to a brig here stateside without an legislative order (even though he can wage a war without authorization). that he is just so much flotsam on the Mississippi, capable of being pushed around by the ripples in the current created by some dude named Max Baucus that no one had ever heard of before that summer.

WE DON'T HAVE THE PUBLIC OPTION BECAUSE YOUR PRESIDENT LIKED THE IDEA OF DOING WHAT WAS BEST FOR HIM MORE THAN WHAT WAS BEST FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND YOU LET HIM GET AWAY WITH IT.


We know the White House cut a deal with hospitals and insurance companies last July on prescription drugs -- but as a New York Times reporter said this week, they also killed the public option. And given the public option's inexplicable fate, I have to believe the story.

On August 13th, David Kirkpatrick reported in the New York Times that contrary to public perception, President Obama was playing a much bigger role in shaping the health care bill. In meetings with Senator Max Baucus and lobbyists from Pharma, the White House was able to get their support for reform -- using Baucus' Finance Committee as a framework for the ultimate legislation.

"Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals," he wrote, "said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan [my emphasis]." Kirkpatrick went on to quote one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, who said: "We have an agreement with the White House that I'm very confident will be seen all the way through conference."

...When the White House in December pressured Harry Reid to cave to Joe Lieberman's extortion - which I dubbed the "Day the Democrats Died" - my faith in Barack Obama was irreparably shattered. At this point, it became crystal clear to me this President would not push the change we can believe in -- that progressives would have to just do it themselves.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-hogarth/did-obama-kill-the-public _1 _b_503975.html

"That's a lobbyist for the hospital industry and he's talking about the hospital industry's specific deal with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee and, yeah, I think the hospital industry's got a deal here. There really were only two deals, meaning quid pro quo handshake deals on both sides, one with the hospitals and the other with the drug industry. And I think what you're interested in is that in the background of these deals was the presumption, shared on behalf of the lobbyists on the one side and the White House on the other, that the public option was not going to be in the final product."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-conf ir m_b_500999.html


In his book, Daschle reveals that after the Senate Finance Committee and the White House convinced hospitals to accept $155 billion in payment reductions over ten years on July 8, the hospitals and Democrats operated under two "working assumptions." "One was that the Senate would aim for health coverage of at least 94 percent of Americans," Daschle writes. "The other was that it would contain no public health plan," which would have reimbursed hospitals at a lower rate than private insurers.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/10/05/the-deal-with-the-hospital-in du stry-to-kill-the-public-option/
 
2012-06-27 06:35:31 PM

Serious Black: jigger: Serious Black: And I certainly don't recall every single infinitesimally small detail of the bill,

But that's where they getcha.

Go on, ask me a question about any provision of the bill.


Why is Obamacare destroying America?
 
2012-06-27 06:36:06 PM
Ironically, subby chose not to use the Ironic tag.
 
2012-06-27 06:39:22 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: The mandate is necessary if pre-existing conditions denials are eliminated. There are plenty of scumbags in the country who will not get insurance until they get really sick.

I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.

 
2012-06-27 06:41:40 PM

relcec: you see, this what I like about you people:


Which people are you referring to? People with dirty fingernails? Short people? People wearing purple shoes? Imaginary people made of straw?
 
2012-06-27 06:46:35 PM

relcec: except you are ignoring the part where Obama made the deal kill the public option before negotiations even began in congress that summer. he nuked it before democratic congressmen even could hash out their differences about it.


That is an inconvenient truth.
 
2012-06-27 06:51:08 PM

Biological Ali: Serious Black: jigger: Serious Black: And I certainly don't recall every single infinitesimally small detail of the bill,

But that's where they getcha.

Go on, ask me a question about any provision of the bill.

Why is Obamacare destroying America?


Because Fartbongo wanted to show Satan he was the real embodiment of evil in the universe. Also, soshulizms.
 
2012-06-27 06:52:08 PM

Serious Black: jigger: Serious Black: jigger: Serious Black: And I certainly don't recall every single infinitesimally small detail of the bill,

But that's where they getcha.

Go on, ask me a question about any provision of the bill.

In Section 1003 where it amends Part C of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 300gg-91) it says:

JUSTIFICATION AND DISCLOSURE.-The process established under paragraph (1) shall require health insurance issuers to submit to the Secretary and the relevant State a justification for an unreasonable premium increase prior to the implementation of the increase. Such issuers shall prominently post such information on their Internet websites. The Secretary shall ensure the public disclosure of information on
such increases and justifications for all health insurance issuers.


Are only "unreasonable" premium increases to be posted on the insurance company's website? What about "reasonable" increases? What constitutes "unreasonable"? Who decides that? Can it be anywhere on the website? Does it have to be easily found by any random grandma? Or just somewhere in there?

The law created a Rate Review program to handle these questions. States are allowed to handle the Rate Review program in-house, or they can let the federal government handle the Rate Review themselves. From what I've seen, almost every state decided to do the rate reviewing themselves rather than hand the duties to the federal government, though the federal government has issued several grants totaling hundreds of millions of dollars to build on the work already accomplished in many states. The people in these programs that make the decisions fall under the purview of the state's insurance commissioner (in my case, Sandy Praeger). The regulations released for handling rate reviews said a few things:

1) Any premium increase above 10% is automatically subject to review and must be accompanied by evidence for assumptions and trends in future health care cost increases,
2) If ...



Where is the 10% provision in the bill? Where on the website must the "unreasonable" rate increase be posted?

Doing a search for "10 percent" I get some things like how much nursing education has to be done outside of a school and out in the "community", but nothing about a rate increase. But there's "There is hereby imposed on any indoor tanning service a tax equal to 10 percent of the amount paid for such service (determined without regard to this section), whether paid by insurance or otherwise."
 
2012-06-27 06:57:28 PM

The Larch: relcec: you see, this what I like about you people:

Which people are you referring to? People with dirty fingernails? Short people? People wearing purple shoes? Imaginary people made of straw?


Forget it. He blew a fuse the other day and has just been spewing nothing but bullshiat ever since.

He never was worth trying to have a conversation with, but he's totally off his nut now.
 
2012-06-27 07:03:52 PM

Tor_Eckman: The Larch: relcec: you see, this what I like about you people:

Which people are you referring to? People with dirty fingernails? Short people? People wearing purple shoes? Imaginary people made of straw?

Forget it. He blew a fuse the other day and has just been spewing nothing but bullshiat ever since.

He never was worth trying to have a conversation with, but he's totally off his nut now.


Quick, ask him what 4/3 is!
 
2012-06-27 07:11:47 PM

colon_pow: So who's going to get screwed if Obamacare is struck down.

well your mom, of course. and she'll get screwed regardless of what the scotus does.


oh yeah? well your mom cares deeply about what the SCROTUS does! Yeah! Burn!
 
2012-06-27 07:12:52 PM
So who's going to get screwed if Obamacare is struck down?

Not a single solitary person in the United States.
 
2012-06-27 07:15:21 PM

The Larch: bugontherug: The Larch: Democrats don't like the insurance mandate. Democrats wanted single payer. Part of the reason that support for Obama is so soft right now is because instead doing what the public asked for, the Democrats tried had to "compromise" compromise with blue dog Democrats representing conservative states in order to pass any reform bill at all over the Republican filibuster a bunch of obstructionists Republicans who refused every attempt to negotiate in good faith.

You keep your crunchy peanut butter facts out of my frothy chocolate rage!

Regardless, you have to grant that Republicans did refuse to negotiate the Affordable Care Act in good faith. In return, I'll grant that the Democrats never had a caucus cohesive enough to pass a more courageous Affordable Care Act on their own. And together, I think we both agree that many on the left are deeply unhappy with the result.


Let me tweak that last part a little bit for you. The Dems in the House knew full well that the Senate Republicans would never allow anything to pass that was any more radical than what they ended up sending them. As compromised as it already was, the House bill still had to be changed significantly to get that asshole Lieberman's vote. Had it not been basically molded into the old, crappy Republican proposal from years ago, it would have died in the Senate just like Clinton's attempt. Nothing would have passed, and the Republicans would have been dancing in the streets at that point and the healthcare status quo would have remained. Instead (at least until tomorrow), millions of people that had no chance at even buying health insurance suddenly could. Millions of young adults that weren't covered suddenly became covered under their parent's policy. Lifetime maximums were done away with. A system where at least the people that pay taxes would have been made responsible for getting their own insurance was put in place. Certainly not perfect, but a pretty big step in the right direction.

The only way the "left" would have been happy would have been if they had passed single payer, universal health care. It makes the most sense, and is the simplest and best solution to most of the problems we have been having with healthcare for the last twenty or thirty years. But it had absolutely no chance of being passed with the makeup of the Senate at the time. No matter how much balls or cohesion or whatever you want to call it the Dems in Congress would have shown, they still wouldn't have been able to get anything more radical past the filibuster-happy Senate minority.
 
2012-06-27 07:16:13 PM

Felgraf: Tor_Eckman: The Larch: relcec: you see, this what I like about you people:

Which people are you referring to? People with dirty fingernails? Short people? People wearing purple shoes? Imaginary people made of straw?

Forget it. He blew a fuse the other day and has just been spewing nothing but bullshiat ever since.

He never was worth trying to have a conversation with, but he's totally off his nut now.

Quick, ask him what 4/3 is!


I would, but I'm pretty sure he has me on his iggy list.
 
2012-06-27 07:31:12 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.

And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.

I was going to reply to this point by point, refuting all of your hypotheses and illuminating for all to see your deep level of misunderstanding not only my post, but things in general, but then I remembered something.

There's no need.

Everyone on this board already knows what an ignorant misguided dickhole you are.


So that just makes you and the other liberals farking thieves. Luckily many states allow people to shoot those stealing from us.
 
2012-06-27 07:34:40 PM

JerkStore: I don't get this whole uproar. I WANT socialized medicine. I am single, 42 years old, and self-employed. My health insurance plan is basically this: don't farking get sick.


Totally understand. I've got a private plan and it's farking $300 a month with a $10K deductible and I'm still afraid that if anything happens and I have to actually use it, I'll get dropped. No pre-existing conditions to boot.
 
2012-06-27 07:41:01 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-06-27 07:54:27 PM
Maybe if it gets upheld, they can explain how the tax/fine/penalty for not accepting this 'healthcare' is supposed to cover the costs as explained. Sonyia should be able to muster that up.
 
2012-06-27 08:02:49 PM

3_Butt_Cheeks: Maybe if it gets upheld, they can explain how the tax/fine/penalty for not accepting this 'healthcare' is supposed to cover the costs as explained. Sonyia should be able to muster that up.


I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court doesn't deal with budgetary matters.
 
2012-06-27 08:05:51 PM

qorkfiend: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Maybe if it gets upheld, they can explain how the tax/fine/penalty for not accepting this 'healthcare' is supposed to cover the costs as explained. Sonyia should be able to muster that up.

I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court doesn't deal with budgetary matters.


Sadly true. No one likes math.
 
2012-06-27 08:07:11 PM

Lando Lincoln: GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.

If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?


I wasn't planning on it, but now that you've reminded me of how your personal gain outweighs the rights of everybody else in the country and the Constitution, I'll be sure to pen you in.
/ who's being "selfish and greedy" now?
 
2012-06-27 08:16:55 PM

MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.

And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.

I was going to reply to this point by point, refuting all of your hypotheses and illuminating for all to see your deep level of misunderstanding not only my post, but things in general, but then I remembered something.

There's no need.

Everyone on this board already knows what an ignorant misguided dickhole you are.

Such nasty name-calling. tsk tsk Those libby emotions really do rule your life. You should try facts and logic for a change.

The reason that you cannot respond in a meaningful way is because you know I'm right.

When something becomes not for profit, does it then become more or less innovative? There are many other questions I could ask along these lines, but that's as good as any to start.

Ask yourself - If you had a serious medical problem and you would benefit from the newest treatments with the best trained doctors, would you seek treatment in a not for profit communist country? You can go anywhere you want - do you pick a current or even former communist state?


And what, exactly, is becoming non-profit, retard?
 
2012-06-27 08:21:30 PM
pisceandreamer 2012-06-27 07:34:40 PM

JerkStore: I don't get this whole uproar. I WANT socialized medicine. I am single, 42 years old, and self-employed. My health insurance plan is basically this: don't farking get sick.

Totally understand. I've got a private plan and it's farking $300 a month with a $10K deductible and I'm still afraid that if anything happens and I have to actually use it, I'll get dropped. No pre-existing conditions to boot.

you might actually be one of the people who will get screwed by ACA. it is a small percentage that get really f*cked by it. the young and relatively healthy. you have a catastrophic policy. early 30s? they want people like you and me to really dump our cash into the insurance company pockets. they don't make enough profit on our catastrophic policies, don't you know.
you know that full plan you didn't want to pay for? that's in your future unless the mandate is thrown out, and even then your catastrophic plan may be prohibitted still so you really have no choice if you want some insurance but to buy the mega plan that costs $7 grand.
 
2012-06-27 08:32:18 PM
Hi guys, Canada (Ontario) here.

Quick CSB time: my dad had a heart attack in November. Emergency triple bypass, 10 days in the hospital, didn't cost us a penny. My brother in law in the Philippines had cancer a couple of years ago... it cost the family about 15 grand for a few months worth of treatment before he died from it. You can't get anything over there without paying up front (at least their meds are fairly cheap, comparatively).

Every single damn one of us is thankful for our socialized healthcare system. In fact, I've NEVER met a fellow Canadian who'd prefer your system. Ever. Not even Canadian conservatives.

Keeping my fingers crossed for you tomorrow. Obamacare is better than nothin'.
 
2012-06-27 08:38:16 PM

Drexl's Eye: Obamacare is better than nothin'.


Yeah, not really. With the compromises and half-measures it's basically like taking people stuck in a burning house and taking them from the bedroom to the living room. Liberals hate it because you still have to pay an insurer an conservatives hate it because it's "Big Gubiment Intrusion".
 
2012-06-27 09:03:17 PM

Ken VeryBigLiar: Drexl's Eye: Obamacare is better than nothin'.

Yeah, not really. With the compromises and half-measures it's basically like taking people stuck in a burning house and taking them from the bedroom to the living room. Liberals hate it because you still have to pay an insurer an conservatives hate it because it's "Big Gubiment Intrusion".


Wrong. I am a liberal, and I don't hate it at all. It's not perfect, but it is a pretty big step in the right direction.

Conservatives hate it because socialism. A program that they came up with and supported until Obama put his stinky signature on it. Socialism. The mandate terrifies them because it makes everyone responsible for having their own health insurance. You know, that personal responsibility thing they have such a hardon for. It frightens them that someone is actually making them put their money where their mouths are.
 
2012-06-27 09:03:20 PM

Ken VeryBigLiar: Yeah, not really. With the compromises and half-measures it's basically like taking people stuck in a burning house and taking them from the bedroom to the living room. Liberals hate it because you still have to pay an insurer an conservatives hate it because it's "Big Gubiment Intrusion".


Funny, I'm about as libby-lib as you can get here, and I don't think anything of the kind.

Care to rephrase your strawman?
 
2012-06-27 09:32:40 PM

Drexl's Eye: Hi guys, Canada (Ontario) here.

Quick CSB time: my dad had a heart attack in November. Emergency triple bypass, 10 days in the hospital, didn't cost us a penny. My brother in law in the Philippines had cancer a couple of years ago... it cost the family about 15 grand for a few months worth of treatment before he died from it. You can't get anything over there without paying up front (at least their meds are fairly cheap, comparatively).

Every single damn one of us is thankful for our socialized healthcare system. In fact, I've NEVER met a fellow Canadian who'd prefer your system. Ever. Not even Canadian conservatives.

Keeping my fingers crossed for you tomorrow. Obamacare is better than nothin'.


I did some work up on Alberta, and got to talking about medical stuff with the guys up there. I felt like I was from a 3rd world country.
 
2012-06-27 09:48:00 PM

Sarsin: Drexl's Eye: Hi guys, Canada (Ontario) here.

Quick CSB time: my dad had a heart attack in November. Emergency triple bypass, 10 days in the hospital, didn't cost us a penny. My brother in law in the Philippines had cancer a couple of years ago... it cost the family about 15 grand for a few months worth of treatment before he died from it. You can't get anything over there without paying up front (at least their meds are fairly cheap, comparatively).

Every single damn one of us is thankful for our socialized healthcare system. In fact, I've NEVER met a fellow Canadian who'd prefer your system. Ever. Not even Canadian conservatives.

Keeping my fingers crossed for you tomorrow. Obamacare is better than nothin'.

I did some work up on Alberta, and got to talking about medical stuff with the guys up there. I felt like I was from a 3rd world country.


Alberta is notoriously conservative, too, at least by Ontario standards.
 
2012-06-27 09:49:30 PM

Drexl's Eye: Alberta is notoriously conservative, too, at least by Ontario standards.


Go figure, they're oil-drunk.

Kind of makes you want to hate libs.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-27 10:13:56 PM

MeinRS6: vpb: being looked down upon by "liberal elites" might be a more urgent problem to them

You are failing to recognize the fact that the agenda of "liberal elites" is bad for the country. So that's why not everyone responds to them in a positive manner. No graph required for that one.


Yes, much the same way I fail to recognise that 2+2=27. I can look at countries like Germany and Sweden and see how well these liberal policies work, and I can look back at the last 30 years and recognise the fact that conservative policies have been a disaster for this country.


So basically Maslows hierarchy shows why people like you ignore objective reality
 
2012-06-27 10:29:51 PM

vpb: MeinRS6: vpb: being looked down upon by "liberal elites" might be a more urgent problem to them

You are failing to recognize the fact that the agenda of "liberal elites" is bad for the country. So that's why not everyone responds to them in a positive manner. No graph required for that one.

Yes, much the same way I fail to recognise that 2+2=27. I can look at countries like Germany and Sweden and see how well these liberal policies work, and I can look back at the last 30 years and recognise the fact that conservative policies have been a disaster for this country.

So basically Maslows hierarchy shows why people like you ignore objective reality



You are gravely mistaken. The US isn't Germany or Sweden and does not have those populations.

And liberal policies have been enacted almost continuously in this country for 50+yrs and none of them work. Ever. You libs just keep claiming that enough money isn't spent on them and that's why they don't work. Now the country is worse than broke, and libs are still claiming that the problem is that taxes aren't high enough and spending on lib programs isn't big enough.

So who is it again that is ignoring reality?
 
2012-06-27 10:44:20 PM

penetrating_virga: whidbey: penetrating_virga: Lando Lincoln: GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.

If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?

Nope, we won't be celebrating your loss.

We WILL however be celebrating the ruling that government cannot force citizens to buy X.

YAY 40 million uninsured people. FARK EM I GOT MINE.

As opposed to what?! Gimme Gimme.. I WANT YOURS!


How is my kids being pushed off of my health insurance likened to "I WANT YOURS?"

If my kids go off of my health insurance, then whenever they need healthcare, they'll have no option but to go to the emergency room. And since they don't have jobs that allow them to pay exorbitant rates for treatment, they'll just stick the costs to the hospital. So the hospital will trash their credit rating, and everybody else gets to pay for the treatment with increased rates.

So how is that better than me paying for my kids insurance? Please explain this to me.
 
2012-06-27 10:49:24 PM

randomjsa: So who's going to get screwed if Obamacare is struck down?

Not a single solitary person in the United States.


Goddamn, you're dumb.
 
2012-06-27 10:55:47 PM

Lando Lincoln: How is my kids being pushed off of my health insurance likened to "I WANT YOURS?"

If my kids go off of my health insurance, then whenever they need healthcare, they'll have no option but to go to the emergency room. And since they don't have jobs that allow them to pay exorbitant rates for treatment, they'll just stick the costs to the hospital. So the hospital will trash their credit rating, and everybody else gets to pay for the treatment with increased rates.

So how is that better than me paying for my kids insurance? Please explain this to me.


He can't. They can't understand that we have a version of socialized care now, we just distribute it all stupid. People with no coverage go to the 1 place where they can't say no and stick the costs to the hospital who takes it out of those of us that can pay. Unless they can stomach letting ERs dump people out the front door dying if they can't pay, it will continue to be that way. Otherwise we might as well go to an actual single payer system so we are at least distributing the money around in a non-silly manor.
 
2012-06-27 11:03:23 PM

MeinRS6:

So who is it again that is ignoring reality?


So -you are posting here to make right wingers seem retarded?
 
2012-06-27 11:03:48 PM

Lando Lincoln: So how is that better than me paying for my kids insurance? Please explain this to me.


Liberals, socialisms and flatulent percussionists.
 
2012-06-27 11:04:47 PM

MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.

And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.


It's much much better to punish kids and disabled people for having dumb parents or a crippling genetic condition than to accept the facts, right, MeinHerr?
 
2012-06-27 11:11:43 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: MeinRS6:

So who is it again that is ignoring reality?

So -you are posting here to make right wingers seem retarded?


His posting makes right wingers look like freaking Einstein.
 
2012-06-28 12:24:47 AM

MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.

And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.


Single payer health care is not even related to communism. You are a moron.

/Or are you actually stupid enough to think us Canadians are Communists?
//Goes way beyond moron.
 
2012-06-28 12:40:52 AM

LavenderWolf: Single payer health care is not even related to communism. You are a moron.


I wasn't talking about single payer or even Obamacare. I was addressing the idea of making the entire medical field not for profit. Communists always railed against profits. Under real communism, someone coming up with an idea, protecting it, then selling it for more than it cost them to make was all frowned upon. The result was a country like the former Soviet Union being backwards and lagging far behind in many areas to countries like the US. So that's what I was talking about.

If you would like to read more on the soul crushing nature of communism and depriving people of incentive, there are a number of books on the topic.
 
2012-06-28 01:15:10 AM

MeinRS6: LavenderWolf: Single payer health care is not even related to communism. You are a moron.

I wasn't talking about single payer or even Obamacare. I was addressing the idea of making the entire medical field not for profit. Communists always railed against profits. Under real communism, someone coming up with an idea, protecting it, then selling it for more than it cost them to make was all frowned upon. The result was a country like the former Soviet Union being backwards and lagging far behind in many areas to countries like the US. So that's what I was talking about.

If you would like to read more on the soul crushing nature of communism and depriving people of incentive, there are a number of books on the topic.


Wait a minute -- you read?!
 
2012-06-28 01:44:23 AM
MeinRS6 is a troll.

Stop feeding the troll.
 
2012-06-28 01:50:45 AM
who is going to get screwed if it stays in effect? everyone.

so, not sure where you're going there with that submitter
 
2012-06-28 01:58:58 AM

Kittypie070: MeinRS6 is a troll.

Stop feeding the troll.


What someone posts when they have nothing worthwhile to say.

So, well done there.
 
2012-06-28 02:14:02 AM

Bob Dolemite: who is going to get screwed if it stays in effect? everyone.


[CITATION NEEDED]

so, not sure where you're going there with that submitter

So I guess you're OK with 40 million Americans being uninsured. It doesn't affect you in any way. Emergency room visits=cheap.
 
2012-06-28 02:34:36 AM

MeinRS6: LavenderWolf: Single payer health care is not even related to communism. You are a moron.

I wasn't talking about single payer or even Obamacare. I was addressing the idea of making the entire medical field not for profit. Communists always railed against profits. Under real communism, someone coming up with an idea, protecting it, then selling it for more than it cost them to make was all frowned upon. The result was a country like the former Soviet Union being backwards and lagging far behind in many areas to countries like the US. So that's what I was talking about.

If you would like to read more on the soul crushing nature of communism and depriving people of incentive, there are a number of books on the topic.


Yes, because "single-payer" and not-for-profit is EXACTLY the same thing as Stalinism. Yes yes, I see it all. You make it so clear now.
 
2012-06-28 03:01:05 AM

Gyrfalcon: Yes, because "single-payer" and not-for-profit is EXACTLY the same thing as Stalinism. Yes yes, I see it all. You make it so clear now.


If I want to say that something is EXACTLY the same thing as Stalinism, then that's what I'll type. You'll notice that I didn't post that though. You are making shiat up and trying to imply that I posted said made up shiat. That's not good. Try to control your urge to lie incessantly.

I'm making a larger point about how to immediately degrade, and ultimately destroy, something by forcing the lib agenda onto it. If healthcare is to become not for profit and paid for by someone other than yourself/your insurance that you pay for because it is a "right", then the system degrades. If you would like proof of that, go to any all gov't cheese hospital, and then go visit a top notch private hospital(It's impossible to discuss all of the different types of funding for private institutions and their tax status, so I won't try to do it here, but there is a difference. And yes, there are tiny exceptions to every rule).

So to break it down for you as simply as I can - Profit=good thing. Liberals that think otherwise=very ignorant bad things
 
2012-06-28 03:05:57 AM

whidbey: Bob Dolemite: who is going to get screwed if it stays in effect? everyone.

[CITATION NEEDED]

so, not sure where you're going there with that submitter

So I guess you're OK with 40 million Americans being uninsured. It doesn't affect you in any way. Emergency room visits=cheap.


Using the ER for a routine or ongoing medical issue is a piss-poor substitute for being in the care of a regular doctor, as well as being far more expensive and taking doctors and nurses away from treating patients who need immediate attention.

How ridiculous that the place which was made for treating real medical "emergencies" has become the only place that most uninsured people can see a doctor. Our government is farking sick for thinking this is an acceptable way to provide heath care in a country that is supposed to be the "most advanced" in the world.

Think I'll throw a copy of Atlas Shrugged on the grill to mark the occasion, and hope that the Sociopathic coont is twisting and burning in hell, along with her words.

'Merika, f*ck yeah!
 
2012-06-28 03:36:21 AM

Lando Lincoln: Goddamn, you're dumb.


Pot meet kettle.

/if the troll is "dumb" what do you call the retarded piece of shiat that responds to em?
 
2012-06-28 07:24:33 AM

gothelder: Lando Lincoln: Goddamn, you're dumb.

Pot meet kettle.

/if the troll is "dumb" what do you call the retarded piece of shiat that responds to em?


Well, I'm responding to you, so...
 
2012-06-28 07:47:13 AM

Lando Lincoln: gothelder: Lando Lincoln: Goddamn, you're dumb.

Pot meet kettle.

/if the troll is "dumb" what do you call the retarded piece of shiat that responds to em?

Well, I'm responding to you, so...


To what end?

You are now firmly embedded in the subgroup of farkers and will be farkied and probably ignored as somebody who is too stupid to realize when they are being trolled by the academy of derp.

Stupid people do not deserve to have their opinions read and by your postings, congrats you are stupid. Unfortunately in the unlikely event you ever do manage pull your head out of your ass to have a conversation with somebody who is not a troll, I am unlikely to read it.

Congrats, it takes a lot to get on that list.
 
2012-06-28 07:53:52 AM

MeinRS6:
If you would like to read more on the soul crushing nature of communism and depriving people of incentive, there are a number of books on the topic.



You keep using that word "Communism". I don't think you know what it means.

Please name one of your "books".
 
2012-06-28 08:10:19 AM
So, fewer Southerners? Guess it's not all bad, maybe we can start evolving.
 
2012-06-28 08:32:58 AM

MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.

And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.


Are you a farking retard or something? What does anything you just said have to do with the comment you are responding to?
 
2012-06-28 08:57:30 AM

manimal2878: MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.

And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.

Are you a farking retard or something? What does anything you just said have to do with the comment you are responding to?


The depths of his ignorance are so deep even Balrogs fear to go down there.
 
2012-06-28 09:24:32 AM

MeinRS6: You are gravely mistaken. The US isn't Germany or Sweden and does not have those populations.


Ah, yes, the old "We're a unique country so that's why solutions that work in every other developed country on the planet won't work here" canard.
 
2012-06-28 09:27:01 AM
 
2012-06-28 09:45:20 AM

jigger: Serious Black: jigger: Serious Black: jigger: Serious Black: And I certainly don't recall every single infinitesimally small detail of the bill,

But that's where they getcha.

Go on, ask me a question about any provision of the bill.

In Section 1003 where it amends Part C of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 300gg-91) it says:

JUSTIFICATION AND DISCLOSURE.-The process established under paragraph (1) shall require health insurance issuers to submit to the Secretary and the relevant State a justification for an unreasonable premium increase prior to the implementation of the increase. Such issuers shall prominently post such information on their Internet websites. The Secretary shall ensure the public disclosure of information on
such increases and justifications for all health insurance issuers.


Are only "unreasonable" premium increases to be posted on the insurance company's website? What about "reasonable" increases? What constitutes "unreasonable"? Who decides that? Can it be anywhere on the website? Does it have to be easily found by any random grandma? Or just somewhere in there?

The law created a Rate Review program to handle these questions. States are allowed to handle the Rate Review program in-house, or they can let the federal government handle the Rate Review themselves. From what I've seen, almost every state decided to do the rate reviewing themselves rather than hand the duties to the federal government, though the federal government has issued several grants totaling hundreds of millions of dollars to build on the work already accomplished in many states. The people in these programs that make the decisions fall under the purview of the state's insurance commissioner (in my case, Sandy Praeger). The regulations released for handling rate reviews said a few things:

1) Any premium increase above 10% is automatically subject to review and must be accompanied by evidence for assumptions and trends in future health care cost i ...


Sorry, I was out for the night and didn't see your questions back. The 10% threshold was established by HHS as an initial check on what constituted unreasonable, but it did not by itself guarantee that rate increases above this threshold were unreasonable. Indeed, some of the comments on HHS's proposed premium review rule said that this threshold was too high, and others said that it was too low. The point of the 10% rule was to set a transitional standard and let regulators focus their work on the most egregious cases before letting the states take control and set their own thresholds. Some states already have said that they will have no standard and will automatically check every single rate change for unreasonableness.

As for the location on the website, there is no official guidance on where it must be placed. I know that for my health insurance plan, the rate increases were contained in the brochure for the plan under a section that specifically calls out changes to the plan, including new benefits, changes to copays and coinsurances, and other clarifications to previously offered benefits.
 
2012-06-28 09:58:07 AM

Serious Black: MeinRS6: You are gravely mistaken. The US isn't Germany or Sweden and does not have those populations.

Ah, yes, the old "We're a unique country so that's why solutions that work in every other developed country on the planet won't work here" canard.


The really strange part about this particular canard is that he's actually arguing that Americans are incapable of making that solution work. That implies either incompetence or irrational contrariness. It's hardly an argument that paints the USA in a favorable light.

As a Canadian, I find the whole mess about healthcare in the USA amusing to begin with, but this particular argument just takes the cake. Please do tell me more about how the USA as a whole is too stupid to make a solution work that has been successfully implemented by every other capitalist first world nation.
 
2012-06-28 10:22:25 AM
So I guess we can take from this that Southerners have more honor and dignity then others, as they will follow the Constitution even if it is not in their own best interests.
 
2012-06-28 10:23:52 AM

Madbassist1: Marcus Aurelius: It would be kind of amusing if the mandate was struck down and the rest stood.

I think the law will stand as it is.


You heard it here first, folks.
 
2012-06-28 11:14:43 AM

KiltedBastich: Serious Black: MeinRS6: You are gravely mistaken. The US isn't Germany or Sweden and does not have those populations.

Ah, yes, the old "We're a unique country so that's why solutions that work in every other developed country on the planet won't work here" canard.

The really strange part about this particular canard is that he's actually arguing that Americans are incapable of making that solution work. That implies either incompetence or irrational contrariness. It's hardly an argument that paints the USA in a favorable light.


Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. Every time somebody suggests that it's impossible for us to achieve universal coverage with quality health care, I throw the American Exceptionalism argument up to question why we can't do it when several other countries have shown that it's feasible, and the argument back is usually "Oh, we can't do something that's impossible." Give me a farking break.
 
2012-06-28 12:44:31 PM

lordaction: So I guess we can take from this that Southerners have more honor and dignity then others, as they will follow the Constitution even if it is not in their own best interests.


It was ruled constitutional so you derp on many levels.
 
2012-06-28 01:35:00 PM

gothelder: Lando Lincoln: gothelder: Lando Lincoln: Goddamn, you're dumb.

Pot meet kettle.

/if the troll is "dumb" what do you call the retarded piece of shiat that responds to em?

Well, I'm responding to you, so...

To what end?

You are now firmly embedded in the subgroup of farkers and will be farkied and probably ignored as somebody who is too stupid to realize when they are being trolled by the academy of derp.

Stupid people do not deserve to have their opinions read and by your postings, congrats you are stupid. Unfortunately in the unlikely event you ever do manage pull your head out of your ass to have a conversation with somebody who is not a troll, I am unlikely to read it.

Congrats, it takes a lot to get on that list.


Well, okay then. I'll miss you.
 
Displayed 247 of 247 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report